 |
| Sr. Margaret Farley |
A
couple of days ago I wrote about the fact that the Vatican had issued a warning
to Catholics about a book, which was written by Sr. Margaret Farley. I
explained that the Vatican had warned Catholics that the sisters book – “Just
Love: A framework for Christian Sexual Ethics” – was likely to cause confusion
amongst Catholics and could therefore prove harmful to Catholics.
My
post however focussed only on my own general concerns that a member of a
Catholic religious order had been so audacious as to publish a book that directly
contradicts Church teaching. I did not provide any details about
what specifically it was about her book that had caused the Vatican such concern.
In response to the post, one of my readers kindly suggested that I would have
done the topic more justice, if I had taken the time to explain what it was
that the Vatican had found objectionable and why. I considered this to be very good
advice and hence this post.
The
entire notification, which was issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the
Faith (CDF) regarding Sr. Farley’s book, is of course available in English on
the CDF website for those who wish to read it.
So
what is it about Sr. Farley’s book that has led the Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith to issue a warning notice to Catholics?
The
first problem identified in Sr. Farley’s book is that it chooses to either
completely ignore the Magisterium or presents the teaching of the Magisterium
as being just one of many opinions, which has no greater value or authority
than the opinions of any other person or organisation. Any good Catholic will of
course know immediately that this is most certainly not true.
The
Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and
the Bishops. Christ promised to protect them from error, saying: “He who hears
you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects
him who sent me.”[1]
We know that whenever the Pope speaks and makes a definitive statement on Faith
or Morals, he does so infallibly. The same is also true of the Bishops when
they speak as one body, but always and only when they do so in union with, never
without, the Pope.[2]
By
choosing to ignore the Magisterium or dismissing its teaching as just one of many
opinions, Sr. Farley ignores the crucial fact that “the task of authentically
interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted
exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”[3]
The Magisterium is the primary means that God has given us to enable us know
the truth and for any Catholic, particularly a theologian and religious like
Sr. Farley, to ignore this or to suggest otherwise, is perverse.
In
addition to ignoring or devaluing the teaching authority of the Magisterium,
Sr. Farley presents teaching on various subjects that is quite evidently in
direct contradiction to the teaching of the Magisterium. She does so on the
subjects of masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, indissolubility
of marriage, and on the issue of divorce and remarriage.
On
the subject of masturbation Sr. Farley claims that masturbation, or
“self-pleasuring” to use her words, is not a moral issue. She states that: “Masturbation…
usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that
many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in
the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not
experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with
husbands or lovers.”[4]
Sr. Farley claims that our only consideration must be to decide whether
masturbation is just or not. The basis for such a decision, she claims, is to
determine whether it is used to help or harm, support or limit, individual “well-being
and liberty of spirit”[5].
When we contrast this view of Sr. Farley with the teaching of the Church, it is
immediately apparent just to what extent Sr. Farley contradicts Church teaching.
“Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual
pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself,
isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[6]
“By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation
of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘Both the Magisterium
of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of
the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation
is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’ ‘The deliberate use of the
sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially
contrary to its purpose.’ For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the
sexual relationship, which is demanded by the moral order and in which the
total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of
true love is achieved.’”[7]
On
the subject of homosexual acts and homosexual unions, Sr. Farley states: “Legislation
for non-discrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships,
civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the
hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being
reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous
love.”[8]
She also says that, “same-sex relationships and activities can be justified
according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities.”[9]
Sr.
Farley’s views in this regard are again blatantly contrary to the teaching of
the Church. The Church goes to great lengths to emphasise that “the number of
men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.
This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them
a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every
sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons
are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to
unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross, the difficulties they may encounter
from their condition.”[10] The
Church also teaches quite unambiguously, contrary to what Sr. Farley proposes,
that, “Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of
grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the
sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective
and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”[11]
Finally,
and equally controversially, Sr. Farley then addresses the issue of marriage,
divorce and remarriage. She states that she is of the opinion that “a marriage
commitment is subject to release on the same ultimate grounds that any
extremely serious, nearly unconditional, permanent commitment may cease to
bind.”[12]
Sr. Farley also presents a view that “the lives of two persons once married
to one another are forever qualified by the experience of that marriage. The
depth of what remains admits of degrees, but something remains. But does what
remains disallow a second marriage? My own view is that it does not. Whatever
on going obligation a residual bond entails, it need not include a prohibition
of remarriage”[13].
Once
again, as has been the case with every previous example already presented from
her book, Sr. Farley has chosen to just ignore
Church teaching. In this instance she ignores the following unmistakeable
words of Christ on the issue of remarriage:
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery
against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery."[14]
“They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a
certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your
hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the
beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except
for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’”[15]
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it abundantly clear that the “Lord
Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that
marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into
the old Law. Between the baptized, ‘a ratified and consummated marriage cannot
be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.’”[16]
It
should be evident from the above examples that Sr. Farley has clearly chosen to
adopt a position in direct contradiction to Church teaching. The Vatican is
therefore wise and in fact obliged to warn Catholics that her book
could confuse them and cause them harm. Catholics should avoid the temptation to buy the book and trust the Church in this regard. Steer well clear of the book!
Old Farley looks like one happy fella!
ReplyDeleteGlad you did this and enlightened us all on this issue. Now I know what this is all about and understand why the Vatican has seen it wise and necessary to warn us about this book.
ReplyDeleteKind regards
The article on Farley’s book illustrates one simple good reason why the LCWR (The Leadership Conference of Women Religious ) have been placed under serious review and constraint by the Vatican.
ReplyDeleteAnd...are these women now squealing! These are the ones who have helped mess up the Church since the 1970's. These are the reason why they are attracting few candidates to join their so-called “religious” orders...Mostly, they are lesbians.
And...now that the Vatican is trying to help them to correct their ways, they are indignantly squealing and accusing the Vatican of acting like bullies and male chauvinists.
The truth is that these women have lost their faith and their direction. They are no longer followers of Christ but infiltrators and false prophets – The New Testament is full of warnings against such people.
Further, other than reading their books so as to charitably warn the innocent, their books are a waste of time or intended for wayward people to eat of "the forbidden tree".