The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published the following notification
regarding the book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Sister
Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M.
Introduction
Having completed
an initial examination of the book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual
Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006) by Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote to the author on March 29, 2010, through the good
offices of Sr. Mary Waskowiak – the then President of the Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas – enclosing a preliminary evaluation of the book and indicating the doctrinal
problems present in the text. The response of Sr. Farley, dated October 28, 2010,
did not clarify these problems in a satisfactory manner. Because the matter concerned
doctrinal errors present in a book whose publication has been a cause of confusion
among the faithful, the Congregation decided to undertake an examination following
the procedure for “Examination in cases of urgency” contained in the Congregation’s
Regulations for Doctrinal Examinations (cf. Chap. IV, art. 23-27).
Following
an evaluation by a Commission of experts (cf. art. 24), the Ordinary Session
of the Congregation confirmed on June 8, 2011, that the above-mentioned book
contained erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the
faithful. On July 5, 2011, a letter was sent to Sr. Waskowiak containing a list of
these erroneous propositions and asking her to invite Sr. Farley to correct the unacceptable
theses contained in her book (cf. art. 25-26).
On October 3, 2011, Sr. Patricia
McDermott, who in the meantime had succeeded Sr. Mary Waskowiak as President of the
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, forwarded to the Congregation – in accordance
with art. 27 of the above cited Regulations – the response of Sr. Farley, together
with her own opinion and that of Sr. Waskowiak. This response, having been examined
by the Commission of experts, was submitted to the Ordinary Session for judgement
on December 14, 2011. On this occasion, the Members of the Congregation, considering
that Sr. Farley’s response did not adequately clarify the grave problems contained
in her book, decided to proceed with the publication of this Notification.
1.
General problems
The author does not present a correct understanding of
the role of the Church’s Magisterium as the teaching authority of the Bishops united
with the Successor of Peter, which guides the Church’s ever deeper understanding of
the Word of God as found in Holy Scripture and handed on faithfully in the Church’s
living tradition. In addressing various moral issues, Sr. Farley either ignores the
constant teaching of the Magisterium or, where it is occasionally mentioned, treats
it as one opinion among others. Such an attitude is in no way justified, even within
the ecumenical perspective that she wishes to promote. Sr. Farley also manifests a
defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law, choosing
instead to argue on the basis of conclusions selected from certain philosophical currents
or from her own understanding of “contemporary experience”. This approach is not consistent
with authentic Catholic theology.
2. Specific problems
Among
the many errors and ambiguities of this book are its positions on masturbation, homosexual
acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce
and remarriage.
Masturbation
Sr. Farley writes: “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. In this way,
it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering
them. My final observation is, then, that the norms of justice as I have presented
them would seem to apply to the choice of sexual self-pleasuring only insofar as this
activity may help or harm, only insofar as it supports or limits, well-being and liberty
of spirit. This remains largely an empirical question, not a moral one” (p. 236).
This
statement does not conform to Catholic teaching: “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. To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s
moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the
affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological
or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”.
Homosexual
acts
Sr. Farley writes: “My own view… is that same-sex relationships and
activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships
and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can
and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise” (p. 295).
This
opinion is not acceptable. The Catholic Church, in fact, distinguishes between persons
with homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts. Concerning persons with homosexual
tendencies, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “they must be
accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination
in their regard should be avoided”. Concerning homosexual acts, however, the Catechism
affirms: “Basing itself on 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”.
Homosexual unions
Sr.
Farley writes: “Legislation for nondiscrimination 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.
… Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex
partners – that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions
between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between heterosexuals” (p. 293).
This
position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: “The Church teaches that the
respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior
or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize,
promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.
Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage
would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making
it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong
to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values,
for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself”. “The principles
of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of
homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition
or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the
social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot
be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”.
Indissolubility
of marriage
Sr. Farley writes: “My own position is 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. This implies that there can
indeed be situations in which too much has changed – one or both partners have changed,
the relationship has changed, the original reason for commitment seems altogether
gone. The point of a permanent commitment, of course, is to bind those who make it
in spite of any changes that may come. But can it always hold? Can it hold absolutely,
in the face of radical and unexpected change? My answer: sometimes it cannot. Sometimes
the obligation must be released, and the commitment can be justifiably changed” (pp.
304-305).
This opinion is in contradiction to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility
of marriage: “By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of
the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to
each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement ‘until further
notice’. The intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the
good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable
union between them. The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant,
in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are
enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility
of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning. 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”.
Divorce and remarriage
Sr.
Farley writes: “If the marriage resulted in children, former spouses will be held
together for years, perhaps a lifetime, in the ongoing project of parenting. In any
case, 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 ongoing obligation a residual bond entails, it need not
include a prohibition of remarriage – any more than the ongoing union between spouses
after one of them has died prohibits a second marriage on the part of the one who
still lives” (p. 310).
This view contradicts Catholic teaching that excludes
the possibility of remarriage after divorce: “Today there are numerous Catholics in
many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In
fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,
commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery’ (Mk 10:11-12) –, the Church maintains that a new union
cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried
civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law.
Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation
persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.
Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have
repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and
who are committed to living in complete continence”.
Conclusion
With
this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound
regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley,
R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching
in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book
Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with
the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of
Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious
dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the
task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of
Catholic doctrine.
The Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI, in the Audience
granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on March 16, 2012, approved the present
Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on March
14, 2012, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 30, 2012.
William Cardinal Levada Prefect
+
Luis F. Ladaria, S.I. Titular Archbishop of Thibica Secretary