It is with great sadness that I announce that Michael P. and I will not be leading a MOJ dialogue on sexual ethics.  Sexual ethics – especially same-sex relationships – seem to be an important point of disagreement among some of the authors of MOJ (as well as the broader Church and culture), and I thought such a discussion could be fruitful at many levels, including modeling constructive dialogue on delicate issues, subjecting leading authorities and our own ideas to critical examination, and learning from one another. 

Michael P. has repeatedly cited Margaret Farley’s “Just Love” as authority for his position on same-sex relations, and he has told us that he finds Farley’s arguments on human sexuality compelling.  I find Wojtyla’s arguments compelling.  Therefore, I thought that these two books by recognized experts – one dissenting from the magisterial teachings of the Church and the other destined to become Pope,  could provide a common set of readings to frame our discussion.  In this discussion, we would subject these books and our own arguments to critical examination and cross-examination.  Through civil argument, we would test who had the better arguments as we refined our own.  I am sure that opinions would differ on this, but we would all be better off having engaged in this important discussion.

Michael P. and I exchanged perhaps a dozen emails today attempting to iron out the details for this unique internet symposium.  In our discussion, it became clear that Michael P. was willing to have me proof text “Love and Responsibility” for places where it might frown upon same-sex relationships and then he would respond.  He was willing to engage in a dialogue over sexual ethics as long as we did not refer to those (Farley and Wojtyla) to whom we owe intellectual debts.  But, he was unwilling to engage in a defense of “Just Love” or more importantly a defense of his position that Farley’s work is compelling.  In short, after citing her as authoritative on more than one occasion, he is unwilling to put her work into play or allow it to be subject to critical examination in a dialogue format.

After failing to get an answer as to why he is unwilling to engage in this examination, I opined that as a matter of intellectual rigor and analysis “Just Love” does not hold a candle to “Love and Responsibility.”  Hearing no other explanation, I wondered “out loud” whether Michael P. doesn’t want to place “Just Love” and his defense of it under the MOJ microscope because he knows it won’t hold up under scrutiny.

I know that I am on shaky ground in suggesting that Farley’s book lacks the intellectual rigor I was hoping for from a major dissenting voice.  After all, respected theologians such as David Hollanbach have given it their imprimatur.  In coming to my conclusion about “Just Love,” let me be clear, I am not insulting Farley, her work, or Michael P.  Instead, I am giving my honest assessment.  And, I am prepared to defend that opinion in the type of civil dialogue I envisioned.  Michael P., if my analysis is weak, expose it as soft-headed as we dialogue.  Instead of being insulted, I will thank you for correcting me and showing me the errors in my thinking.  If “Just Love” is, as Hollanbach suggests, “the best book on sexual ethics in decades,” it ought to be very easy for you, Michael P., to show us as we dialogue why you find her dissenting views so compelling and why I am so wrong in my criticism.

In short Michael P., I still hope you will come out and play.  If December and January don’t work for you, October or November would be best for me.  But, I would be willing to engage in a serious reflection of “Just Love” and “Love and Responsibility” in August or September or anytime after January.  Just name it.  In Christ's Peace, Michael S.