Stunted teaching on sex has role in church’s crisis S.Callahan 21 Mar 03
A
deeper understanding of the centrist views of VOTF
I belong to that large centrist, reform-minded group of devoted Catholics who affirm the creeds, the scriptures and the teachings of Vatican II, but have come to a far different diagnosis of our current sexual abuse troubles.
By
SIDNEY CALLAHAN
The
effects of the sex abuse crisis in the American church aren’t going away.
A host of issues concerning church government and accountability continues to
surface. Everyone from the bishops on down may agree that change is needed, but
when it comes to specifying reforms, disagreements bubble up
Deep
and fundamental differences, for instance, emerge when it comes to the future role
of the official teachings of Roman authorities on matters of sex and gender.
Two opposing agendas for the church directly conflict.
One
traditional group sees our current sex abuse troubles as stemming from past and
present infidelities of priest perpetrators to Pope John Paul II’s
articulation of sexual teaching. In this view, sin and evil are recognized as
always present, but abusing priests have been led to violate their vows of
chastity and celibacy because of the debilitating permissiveness toward
sexuality that pervades both the church and the culture. Offending bishops did
not exercise their proper authority of oversight and correction, in part
because they, too, were infected by the climate of laxity and infidelity to the
church’s sexual teachings. Granted, the bishops had to cope with the
’60s sexual revolution and bad psychological advice, but, goes this
indictment, infidelity lies at the heart of the matter. Many seminaries have
been remiss in not adhering to the strict theological and practical formation
necessary for priests.
The
solution? In this neoconservative diagnosis, the American church and its
leaders must conform more strictly to the church’s sexual teachings as
articulated by the Vatican. Disobedience to the hard sayings of Christianity
produces sin and hinders the church from being a countercultural force. Courage
is called for; the bishops in their teaching roles must reassert the ban on
artificial contraception, on women’s ordination, on married priests, on
remarriage of the divorced, and most important, the ban on homosexual activity,
particularly in the seminaries and the priesthood. Only then will health and
integrity be restored.
To
get with this program, dissenting Catholic laity and theologians, along with
wavering bishops, must be shaped up to obedience. The seminaries must be set
straight on sexual matters and, if need be, purged of dangerous influences. It
may even be a good idea, say some, to ban the ordination of homosexuals to the
priesthood.
I
cannot agree with the above analysis and agenda in good conscience. I belong to
that large centrist, reform-minded group of devoted Catholics who affirm the
creeds, the scriptures and the teachings of Vatican II, but have come to a far
different diagnosis of our current sexual abuse troubles. Indeed, I see the
present teachings on sex and gender as contributing to the current disarray.
The last thing we need is a reaffirmation of rigid teachings, which are
seriously flawed morally and theologically.
Yes,
I agree with the conservative assessment of our sexually permissive secular
culture as destructive and dangerous to men, women, children, families and the
unborn. But I don’t think our present Catholic stance is helping the
situation. The official Catholic teachings on sex and gender are too
inadequate, stunted and skewed to help engender mature chastity in either a
celibate or marital vocation. The distortions on sexuality also weaken the
church’s moral authority in the crucial work of the pro-life movement and
for peace and justice.
While
Vatican II marked a positive turn toward accepting human sexuality as a gift of
the Creator, no adequate theology of the body and sexuality has been developed
since. Paul VI’s post-council reaffirmation of the ban on contraception
in Humanae Vitae was a sad regression. Giving in to conservative fears, the
pope reversed the recommendation for change offered by the majority of the
birth control commission he had appointed. In effect, he repudiated the
testimony brought by married lay members on the burden of the teaching. He also
ignored the opinion of theologians and others. The message given then, and ever
since, is that the experience of the married laity, and the value of sexuality
can be discounted.
Not
surprisingly, the widespread theological dissent from Humanae Vitae has been
accompanied by disregard for the teaching by the American laity and the
majority of their parish priests. While bishops must pledge their adherence to
the ban on contraception to be appointed, one wonders how many truly believe
that the majority of their faithful laity, priests and theologians are wrong.
While conservatives would see only disobedience, dissenting Cath-olics see in
Vatican teaching an authoritarian reassertion of the older fear and disdain for
sexuality.
Further
rejection of the value of sexuality is signaled by Vatican refusals to consider
a married priesthood in the Roman rite, the forbidding of sexuality to the
divorced and remarried, and the absolute prohibition of any sexual activity in
committed homosexual unions. Women’s welfare and dignity are also seen as
threatened when contraceptive methods (that are not abortifacients) are
repudiated.
The
traditional overemphasis on biological procreation rather than psychosocial
generativity belies the lived sexual experiences in a changed social world.
John Paul II may have apologized to women for past wrongs, but his refusal to
allow discussion of women’s ordination and his strictness on sexuality is
seen as a de facto repudiation of women’s full sexual partnership in the
church.
The
pope upholds his particular view of the complementarity of the sexes (which he
finds revealed in the Genesis creation narrative commanding procreation) and
concludes that in the church there exists a female Marian principle (no
ordination) that complements a male Petrine principle (ordination). Granted,
John Paul II has made efforts to defend the goodness and sacredness of married
heterosexuality in his prolific writings, but his insistence upon gender
complementarity and the ban on contraception ensure that his teachings fail the
needs of ordinary persons. The pope’s romantic rhetoric is not received
beyond a minority.
While
Christian teachings and understanding of sexuality and gender have been
evolving over the centuries, at this point we are caught in both an
underestimation of the positive power of sexuality to engender love, unity and
transformation in committed couples, and an overestimation of the moral,
psychosocial and theological significance of gender identity (mostly female).
These inadequacies are systemically interrelated and thwart change. Authorities
fear that if the ban on contraception and procreative gender complementarity is
relaxed, then the way is opened to homosexual unions, which would further
threaten gender complementarity, which in turn would threaten the ban on
women’s ordination, and so on.
All
of these lingering denigrations of sexuality and women have played a part in
the sex abuse crisis. Both perpetrators and their bishops were formed in a
seminary system upholding official teachings that either disdained sexuality or
denied its positive power and importance in personal development. There was a
biological emphasis upon procreation and the dangers of lust. In a climate of
distrust, silence reigns. Future priests could hardly be well prepared for the
challenges of mature chastity, interpersonal integrity or ministry to the
married. Sexual lapses could end up being equated with drunkenness, as just
another instance of individual sin.
Slighting
the importance of the interpersonal dimension of sexuality leads to a
minimizing of sexual abuse. When the psychosexual value of sexuality is not
recognized, it is easy to deny the enormity of the damage that sexual abuse can
do to a young person’s development. If abusing priests had been dosing
young persons with growth-inhibiting hormones, would the priests have been so
easily forgiven and secretly reassigned?
Secrecy
and denial in a segregated clerical system made it easier for perpetrators to
hide. Women, still defined as dangerous and denied equal status, could be kept
at a distance and their witness discounted. Mothers, fathers, nuns and other
family members, as lay persons, remain without a voice, until they call in the
law or the media.
Needless
to say, within a distorted sexual teaching focused on reproduction and the
danger of adult women, homosexual encounters could be seen as safe from
consequences and remain relatively invisible. Illicit sexual activity is more
likely when there is little openness or value given to sexual maturity.
Homosexuality remains so officially taboo that it is off the moral screen and
outside the system -- in theory, if not in practice.
So
what to do? Obviously children and young people must be protected. This lesson
has been learned. But can moral integrity be restored if authorities rigidly
attempt to enforce conformity to problematic teachings, especially in the
seminaries? Instead, new efforts should be expended to develop a more adequate
Christ-worthy theology of sex and gender. The sense of the faithful must be
consulted. Courage is needed to initiate more honest discussions and to
dispense with deceptions.
But
where or when can we have truly free, open dialogue to confront conflicting
agendas? In the universities, in diocesan synods, in newly formed lay
commissions, in local and ecumenical councils?
Hope
arises only from the faith that the Holy Spirit has led us since Vatican II to
acknowledge that we are a learning church, ever reforming, ever on pilgrimage.
The sex abuse crisis may force us to admit that we have a long way to go to
develop and appropriate the riches of our Catholic sacramental tradition. We
believe in the goodness of sexual embodiment, the goodness of committed love,
and in gender equality, but working these affirmations out will not be easy.
Of
course, all Catholics recognize the perpetual presence of sin and
self-deception. Humility means to remain teachable and to keep a willingness to
be persuaded by our sisters and brothers in Christ. But humility and a love of
the church cannot countenance silence, especially not at this time.
Sidney
Callahan is professor of moral theology at St. John’s University, Queens,
N.Y.
National
Catholic Reporter, March 21, 2003
Date: 16 Apr 16:57 (PDT)
To: Comments@FaithfulVoice.com
Subject: callahan
article
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is so full of 60s distorted sexual liberation as to
be almost
ludicrous. The distortions about human
sexuality as she presents it is so
far
removed from Catholic tradition and the constant teaching of the church.
Every papal encyclical on marriage has
maintained that sexuality is a gift
of
God, when ordered to its proper end, spousal love and procreation. To
suggest
that "outdated Papal teachings" have any bearing on the sex abuse
crisis
on the church is beyond belief.
Callahan should know that the
majority
of cases involved homosexuality
and the church has always labeled as
sin
any genital act outside the confines of marriage. These are teachings
received
directly from Christ, but apparently Callahan doesn’t seem to grasp
that. And this is a professor at a
"Catholic University?"
No wonder our
students
have no moral framework to order their lives. She should be
dismissed. Peter Frey Ph.D.
Date: 17 Apr 20:53 (PDT)
Subject: Response
to Ms. Callahan's Article
Contraception
is part of the problem, not part of the solution to the
sexual
abuse scandal in the Church!! It
is more than too bad that
Ms.
Callahan, in her most influential position at St. John's
University,
has remained in "invincible ingnorance" in regards to the
truth
of the Church's teaching on marriage and family! I hope she
educates
herself by reading about the marriage building effects of
Natural
Family Planning.
Also, she should look at the
Family Policy
Publication
cited in my letter re "observations on the sexual abuse
scandal"
sent to you in January of this year. Other articles in the
same
publication, some written by Christians outside the Catholic
tradition,
discuss the negative impact and ill effects of
contraception.
The article cited in my letter, "The Deconstruction of
Perversion" is enough to give pause to anyone jumping on the
contraception
bandwagon, especially in light of the recent scandal.
It
is hoped that those who look for truth would take another look and
not
allow "invincible ignorance" to be a stumbling block in their
search
for authentic discussion and solutions.
Mary Dillon
Date: 14 Apr 19:16 (PDT)
Subject: Sidney
Callahan's article in National Catholic Reporter
I
find myself sickened by this article. Jesus did not relax the laws of God. He brought
them to new levels. For one to have lust in his heart was a sin. I have been
reading Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body and find him to be right on with
the teachings of Christ. Sex in the proper perspective, between a husband and
wife can be the most beautiful expression of Love. It begins to fall apart when
self satisfaction takes over as in contraception. It is when we cave in to our
own desires that we fall into the snare of Satan! May our Father in heaven have mercy on us all.
God
bless you for keeping up with FaithfulVoice. We need to be heard.
Helen n
Date: 14 Apr 18:56 (EDT)
Subject: Prof.
Callahan
Regarding Prof. Callahan's
comment: "distorted sexual teaching
focused
on reproduction"...has she even READ Humanae Vitae??? This is a
PROFESSOR
of theology??? Unbelievable!
Return to FaithfulVoice.com
main page