What’s Truth Got to Do with It?

 

This past Monday, June 18, The Guardian [here] published Professor Lisa Sowle Cahill’s defense of Sister Margaret Farley, R.S.M. and her book Just Love—A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics. Our friend and fellow MOJ contributor, Michael Scaperlanda [here], recently commented about Sister Farley’s receipt of the notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding this book. [here] Professor Cahill, who teaches theology at Boston College, suggests that the Church has directed a “misguided attack” on Farley’s theology; moreover, the “misguided attack” is “not only authoritarian” but is also “out of touch with American Catholic opinion.”

I think that a robust and truthful exchange in the academy, the public square, and the media is a good thing; moreover, these exchanges are an important part of American culture, political institutions, and the law. I also realize that whenever one speaks in the public square, he or she may think the position being advanced is an accurate presentation and truthful statement of the position asserted. In the context of Vatican dicasteries, media presentations, and authors’ perspectives, the truth of the matter is surely of critical concern to informing the public opinion on matters of importance to the res publica and the common good.

Along with many others, I agree that the matters surrounding Sister Farley’s book and the notification she received are of vital concern to Catholics and the public at large. However, I do not think that Professor Cahill’s presentation of the CDF Notification of Sister Farley’s book is an accurate one. A truthful presentation of critical facts surrounding this important matter is absent from her article that is intended to influence and has likely influenced a large readership. In the law: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—so help us, God—is something with which the contributors of the Mirror of Justice, Catholics, and the American public in general are familiar. So, what is the basis of my objections to Professor Cahill? Put simply, what is true and what is not about l’affaire Farley presented by Professor Cahill?

In the first place, Professor Cahill begins with an assertion that the notification of Sister Farley’s book is the “latest instance of the Vatican’s censure of American nuns.” There is no censure, to my knowledge, as she characterizes it. Rather there is a doctrinal assessment [here] of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. The truth of the matter demonstrates that the assessment “acknowledges with gratitude the great contribution of women Religious to the Church in the United States.” To allege and argue that there is an ongoing series of Vatican censures of American nuns is not the truth. What is the truth of the matter, as the doctrinal assessment states, is what the LCWR has done, not what American nuns have done. This is a crucial distinction not found in the Cahill position. It is the words and deeds of the LCWR that are the grounds for the assessment—and as I have argued before, not the actions of all the sisters who belong to the congregations and institutes which are members of the LCWR. This important element of the truth is glossed over by Professor Cahill and many media reports which have discussed the doctrinal assessment.

Second, on several occasions Professor Cahill chastises Rome for being out of touch with “modern US Catholic mainstream.” What constitutes this body of persons and how any study was conducted in the context of Sister Farley’s book are not explained. In the hypothetical, if a majority of Catholics were in favor of military interventions against the Baathist regime or Osama bin Laden, how would Professor Cahill express her nuanced positions? And if Amazon and New York Times sales are an indicator of Professor Farley’s status, are the purchases of her book evidence for agreement with her positions or are they evidence of the fact that readers are interested in the sensational? Perhaps both? Perhaps the sensational? For example, other notable best seller lists of recent decades indicate increased sales for books, sometimes sensational, by: Glen Beck, Mark Rubio, Bill O’Reilly, Colin Powell, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and going back a little more, Richard Nixon. What do the increases in sales of works by these authors indicate about the acceptance of the positions of the authors? Professor Cahill more than suggests that there is a connection between the positions Sister Farley advances in Just Love and reader support when she asserts that recent book-sale “statistics tell the truth.” I, however, disagree. The increase in sales of this book indicate there is public interest, but the nature of why the public is interested cannot be determined by Farley's popularity or, for that matter, Richard Nixon's.

I agree with Professor Cahill that Sister Farley emphasizes the role of personal (or “lived”) experience in Just Love over the Catholic tradition of natural law reasoning. But I do not share Professor Cahill’s apparent agreement with Sister Farley that lived experience trumps the objective formulation of norms and moral precepts based on reliance on the natural law. In the context of sexual morality, Professor Cahill, and by Cahill’s implication Sister Farley, misstate that the Catholic tradition can be relied upon to justify the position that “any truly loving relationship will meet the test of justice” which can then be supported and endorsed by the Church. I have read Sister Farley’s book Just Love, and I do not agree with Professor Cahill that the Farley definition of justice is a correct one given the context of sexual mores, i.e., what is right and what is wrong in consenting sexual activity. Furthermore, I must disagree with Cahill that the subjective standards upon which these two individuals rely is not the tradition of the Catholic Church. The CDF appears to agree with my last statement.

A third important point about the Cahill article needs to be addressed here. Professor Cahill indicates that “the condemnation of [Farley’s] book was predetermined and the investigation [of Just Love] a mere formality.” However, this contention is refuted not only by the CDF but by Sister Farley as well. Looking at the CDF’s refutation, the CDF concerns about Just Love were made known to the author several years ago; consequently, in March of 2010, the CDF wrote the author seeking clarification of the positions expressed in the book. Sister Farley responded in October of 2010, but the CDF found her responses insufficient. But the discussion did not stop here. The discourse among the CDF, Sister Farley, and the sister’s religious superiors continued into 2011. From Sister’s Farley’s viewpoint, none of this extended engagement is denied; moreover, Sister Farley expressed her appreciation of the efforts made by the CDF and its consultors over several years to evaluate her positions as presented in Just Love. From this evidence, the conclusion that “the condemnation…was predetermined” and “the investigation a mere formality” are unwarranted. Sister Farley does allege that the CDF’s Notification did not consider the arguments for her positions. Yet, considering the dialogue that took place between her and the CDF, it does appear that the CDF did consider them. What the CDF did not do was to accept Farley’s justifications as the truth of the matters asserted. As with all due process, arguments and evidence must be heard, but this does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that they must be accepted. In this case, the arguments and evidence submitted by Sister Farley, while considered, were deemed insufficient to convince the CDF.

More can and should be said about Professor Cahill’s Guardian article, but this is enough for one day.

 

RJA sj