|
 |
The Sexual Person
Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology
Todd A. Salzman, Michael G. Lawler
$29.95
ISBN: 9781589012080 (1589012089)
LC: 2007046198
Book (Paperback)
6 x 9
352 pages
May 2008
|
|
|
"Salzman
and Lawler are accomplished theologians with the stature to confront
questions that have become highly inflammatory in the too-often
polarized Catholic environment. The result is a piece of extensive,
well-researched, and carefully argued scholarship. The authors are
respectful, intelligent, honest, thorough, and courageous. They will
alarm a few people, enlighten many, and hold all to a new standard of
rigor in approaching this very personal and politicized subject."—Lisa Sowle Cahill, J. Donald Monan Professor of Theology, Boston College
"[A]
carefully reasoned, nuanced, well-informed, often inspiring, and
innovative book. Bound to be controversial for proposing an alternative
to the primarily procreationist, traditionalist sexual anthropology in
'official' or 'tradionalist' Catholic treatments, The Sexual Person
mounts a cogent and compelling account for a renewed genuinely Catholic
sexual ethic, one widely informed by the social sciences. [This book]
represents Catholic theological anthropology and ethics at their very
best."—John A. Coleman, SJ, Casassa Professor of Social Values, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles
"[T]he
most comprehensive, critical analysis of the Catholic debate on sexual
ethics over the past fifty years. Its interpersonal and experiential
approach points to a thorough revision of Church teaching on birth
control, reproductive technology, premarital sex, and homosexuality."—Edward C. Vacek, SJ, professor, Department of Moral Theology, Weston Jesuit School of Theology
"This
superb volume courageously explores Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
The authors' exploration of the biological, relational, and spiritual
dimensions of human sexuality engages Catholic teaching respectfully,
critically, and creatively. The book is a significant contribution to
both sexual ethics and moral theology generally."—Paul Lauritzen, director, Program in Applied Ethics, John Carroll University
"This
book is a much needed contribution to the contemporary Catholic
discussion of sexual ethics. The authors utilize the most recent
sociological and psychological data to supplement their careful parsing
of the Catholic theology of sex, gender, and embodiment. It is a work
that manages to be highly theoretical while at the same time addressing
everyday concerns about premarital sex, contraception, homosexuality,
divorce and reproductive technology.
Lawler and Salzman embrace the
model of theology as dialogue and as a result their treatment of both
traditionalist and revisionist views about human sexuality is
constructive and helpful. They succeed in moving a seemingly stalled
conversation forward."—Aline Kalbian, associate professor, Department of Religion, Florida State University
"A
bold and brave book! Tightly argued and well-documented, this book lays
out an understanding of human sexuality that expresses the profound
work that theologians do on behalf of the Church in order to find ever
better understandings of what the Church teaches in light of the
witness of Scripture, the tradition, and our understanding of human
experience."—Richard M. Gula,SS, The Franciscan School of Theology, Graduate Theological Union
Two
principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the
morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur
within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every
marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this
comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd
A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these
principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they
contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by
adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview
on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a
static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics.
While some documents from Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes
("the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each
other"), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church
has not carried out the full implications of this approach. In short,
say Salzman and Lawler: emphasize relationships, not acts, and
recognize Christianity's historically and culturally conditioned
understanding of human sexuality. The Sexual Person draws
historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of
Catholic tradition and provides a context for current theological
debates between traditionalists and revisionists regarding marriage,
cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it
means to be human. This daring and potentially revolutionary book will
be sure to provoke constructive dialogue among theologians, and between
theologians and the Magisterium.
| Todd A. Salzman is a professor of Catholic theology and chair of the Department of Theology at Creighton University. He is the coeditor of Marriage in the Catholic Tradition: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience and author of What Are They Saying about Roman Catholic Ethical Method? |
| Michael G. Lawler is professor emeritus of Catholic theology at Creighton University. He is the author of What Is and What Ought to Be: The Dialectic of Experience, Theology, and Church and Marriage and the Catholic Church: Disputed Questions. |
Sample Content:
Prologue
Table of Contents
December 5, 2008
/ Volume
CXXXV, Number
21
EDITORIAL
The Bishops & Obama
Absolutism & democratic deliberation
The Editors
The gracious tone of Sen. John McCain’s
election-night concession speech was both impressive and reassuring,
especially his call for Americans to bridge abiding differences and
forge the “necessary compromises” the nation requires. Unfortunately,
that tone and sentiment were lacking in the response of many Catholic
bishops to Barack Obama’s victory.
Most striking were the public statements made
by apparently outraged bishops during the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops fall meeting in Baltimore, November 11. Cardinal
Francis George, president of the USCCB, released a brief official
statement the following day, reflecting the bishops’ concerns over the
supposedly imminent threat posed by President-elect Obama’s support for
the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The remarks of many bishops during
the televised portion of the meeting were intemperate and polarizing,
and their panic over FOCA is premature.
FOCA, which evidently aims to outlaw any
restriction of access to abortion—such as late-term bans or parental
con-sent for minors—is a piece of abortion-rights propaganda that was
introduced in Congress in its earliest form in 1989. The bill has never
gotten out of committee, even during the Clinton administration, and
appears to be more a fundraising device and a rallying cry for
prochoice groups than a serious piece of legislation. Its wording is
imprecise, and the bill’s attempt to establish a fundamental right to
abortion by statute is probably unconstitutional. Aside from one
statement Obama made to an abortion-rights group eighteen months ago,
support for FOCA did not play a significant part in his campaign. His
commitment to work to reduce the number of abortions played a much
larger part. Is it possible that this very divisive piece of
legislation will now leap to the top of the new president’s agenda?
True, Obama’s support for abortion rights is unambiguous, and politics
is an unpredictable business. But it seems unlikely that the new
president will seek to intensify the culture wars (a conflict he has
repeatedly promised to mitigate) by aggressively pursuing such radical
legislation. If he does, his effort to build a broad political
coalition that embraces prolife voters will end in bitter
disappointment and recrimination.
It is not surprising that the bishops
vigorously oppose FOCA. They should. What is disconcerting is how
opposition to the bill became the focus of their response to Obama’s
election. Evidently goaded by a worst-case reading of the bill’s
possible impact, and by tendentious speculation about Obama’s
intentions, many bishops demanded that a confrontational approach be
taken toward the new administration. “This body is totally opposed to
any compromise,” proclaimed one bishop. “We are dealing with an
absolute,” said another, “there is no room for compromise.” Others
called for a “war” against abortion, and urged the church to adopt an
unyielding “prophetic” voice.
Prophecy has its place, but if citizens bring
only absolute demands into the political arena, democratic deliberation
and consensus-building become impossible. As the political philosopher
Michael Walzer reminds us in his essay “Drawing the Line: Religion and
Politics,” decision-making in a pluralistic democracy “requires an
acceptance of the open, pragmatic, contingent, uncertain, inconclusive,
and tolerant character of all arguments, positions, and alliances on
the political side of the line.” Rejection of compromise, Walzer warns,
is a “kind of political escapism, where what is being escaped is the
day-in, day-out negotiation of difference.”
Changing the practice of abortion in this
country will first require changing the hearts and minds of millions of
its citizens. Important progress has been made in this regard, but it
is fragile and easily reversed when the prolife movement is perceived
as hostile to the political process itself or ideologically extreme, as
the defeat of yet another referendum outlawing abortion in South Dakota
showed in November. When the bishops speak and act in ways that seem
designed to preclude political compromise, they fall into this trap.
Some bishops may see themselves as harried prophets speaking to an
unhearing people. But the unborn need more than prophets. They need the
most persuasive political advocates possible, advocates who recognize
the necessity of bridging differences and striking compromises in order
to save lives. As Bishop Blase J. Cupich of South Dakota cautioned his
colleagues, “Keep in mind a prophecy of denunciation quickly wears
thin, and it seems to me what we need is a prophecy of solidarity, with
the community we serve and the nation that we live in.”
The bishops must find that voice again, and
put it to good use in the ongoing struggle against the violence of
abortion and the host of other ills plaguing this nation. Anything
less, as Walzer notes, is escapism.
Monday, December 1, 2008
The 2008 ABA Journal Blawg 100
These are the 100 best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers, as chosen by the editors of the ABA Journal.
Voting ends on Jan. 2.
For a printable list of all 100 blogs, click here.
If you’re one of the bloggers in the Blawg 100, click here to learn how to promote the honor on your site.
9
votes
In
this virtual space, Catholic law professors highlight events of shared
interest and deliberate over canon law. In this election year, politics
came to the fore. But while these bloggers are of one church, they are
not of one mind, and impassioned intellectual discussions ensue.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Rick understandably but nonetheless incorrectly assumes that when I post something by someone else (e.g., John Haldane) on MOJ, I do so (in part) because I agree with the contents of the post.
Well, sometimes I do post something by someone else because I agree with the contents of the post and want to share it with MOJ readers.
But sometimes I post something by someone else not because I agree with it--I may not agree with it, or with all of it, or I may not even know whether I agree with it--but just because I think that many MOJ readers will be quite interested in it.
And sometimes I post something ... just to get a rise out of Rick. (Just kidding, Rick!)
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
New York Times, November 26, 2008
Florida Gay Adoption Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional
By YOLANNE ALMANZAR
MIAMI — A Florida law that has banned
adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades is
unconstitutional, a judge here ruled on Tuesday.
“The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting
homosexual adoption,” the judge, Cindy S. Lederman of Miami-Dade
Circuit Court, said in a 53-page decision. She said the law violated
equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.
A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said the state would
appeal, and the case is likely to end up before the State Supreme Court.
Florida
is the only state with a law prohibiting gay men and lesbians — couples
and individuals — from adopting children. The Legislature voted to
prohibit adoptions by gay men and lesbians in 1977, in the midst of a
campaign led by the entertainer Anita Bryant to repeal a gay rights
ordinance adopted by Dade County.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Florida law.
Some states, like Mississippi and Utah, effectively bar adoptions
by same-sex couples through laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried
couples. Arkansas voters passed a similar measure this month.
The ruling on Tuesday will allow Frank Martin Gill, 47, a gay man
from North Miami, to adopt two foster children whom he has raised since
2004. “Our family just got a lot more to be thankful for this
Thanksgiving,” Mr. Gill said in a news release issued by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him.
Robert Rosenwald, director of the LGBT Advocacy Project of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and one of the lawyers on the
case, said, “The case means that these two boys won’t be torn from the
only home that they’ve ever known,” said.
The state presented experts who argued that there was a higher
incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among same-sex couples, that their
relationships were less stable than those of heterosexuals, and that
their children suffered a societal stigma.
But lawyers for Mr. Gill presented evidence contradicting those contentions, which Judge Lederman found persuasive.
“It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent,” she wrote.
Mr. Rosenwald called the decision a huge victory for gay and lesbian
parents and for almost 1,000 children in Florida waiting to be adopted.
“The court for the first time after hearing all of the evidence
determined that the scientific evidence is crystal clear,” he said.
“There is no dispute that children raised by gay parents fare just as
well or better than children raised by straight parents.”
NCR, November 26, 2008
In thanksgiving for Ted Kennedy's legacy of faith-filled service
By Douglas W. Kmiec
The
great presidential contest is concluded. The words and expectations of
promise and hope sit well upon a Republic troubled by war and financial
ruin. Much ink has already run explaining the outcome, but oddly, most
if not all have overlooked a game-changing endorsement – that of Ted
Kennedy in January 2008. Just a short time later, Kennedy would be
diagnosed with brain cancer, which today he is fighting in the usual
stoic way the Kennedys handle adversity.
In politics, no one is free of controversy and Ted Kennedy has had
his share. Yet, it cannot be gainsaid that he has lived JFK's inaugural
observation that "here on earth, God's work must truly be our own."
Kennedy's faith is that of Francis calling us to look first to the
needs of the poor. It is the faith of Benedict and Thomas Aquinas
calling us to discipline our minds and to understand the importance of
seeking good and avoiding evil. It is the faith of Thomas More
reminding us that on this earth it is up to us to establish legal and
political systems of justice. It is the faith of John Paul II who
invited us to cross the threshold, not in fear, but with hope.
Ted Kennedy's faith also calls upon the Nicene Creed to remember
that despite our political differences, we remain "one holy catholic
and apostolic Church."
For too long in America, people of good will sharing the Catholic
faith have been divided. We have been told, or we have convinced
ourselves, that unless there is perfect agreement on every issue, there
can be no friendship. It has served the narrow, partisan political
interests of some to keep us divided, and those who profit politically
by such division were -- regretfully -- present again in 2008.
Often our most profound disagreements have been over the most
innocent -- the unborn. We grasp the necessary primacy of the right to
life, but then seemingly cannot comprehend that there may be more than
a single way to build a "culture of life." The church has always meant
this phraseology to be far broader than the reversal of one, aberrant
Supreme Court opinion.
Ted Kennedy has built up that culture by: reforming immigration in
1965 (abolishing irrational quotas); creating a federal cancer research
program in 1971 that quadrupled the amount spent on the number one
disease affecting millions of Americans each year; promoting women's
equality in college sports with the passage of Title IX in 1972;
curbing the corrupting influence of money in politics with the public
financing system for presidential candidates in 1974; securing the
creation of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday in 1983; bringing
racial justice to South Africa by spearheading the 1986 anti-apartheid
efforts; co-authoring in the 1990s, the Family and Medical Leave Act
helping business to begin to understand the Catholic insight that "work
is for man; man is not for work; allowing for student loans at
subsidized rates; passing the law in 1996 that allows employees to keep
health insurance after leaving a job; sponsoring needed increases in
the minimum wage; requiring more rigorous testing of public school
students in 2001; and even in the last few months in the midst of his
own illness, securing Senate passage of a measure requiring doctors to
provide parents with the latest information about caring for children
with disabilities as well as available support services and networks
that can help parents unfamiliar with Down syndrome choose life. The
bill also calls for creation of a national registry of families willing
to adopt the disabled child. Today, 80 to 90 percent of women who learn
they are carrying an unborn child with Down syndrome opt for abortion.
Kennedy and co-sponsor Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, believe
accurate information about services available will bring that
tragically obscene rate down.
The legislative accomplishments of Ted Kennedy remind us how our
faith is less categorical demand than the extension of empathy,
compassion and assistance to those who stand in need among us now,
whether that is a mother facing an unwanted or complicated pregnancy or
a worker who was been left behind in the race for corporate greed that
now gives rise to the financial bail-out.
With his early endorsement of the new president-elect, Ted Kennedy
was one of the first to invite us to contemplate replacing "the
politics of fear with the politics of hope." Thank you, Senator, in
this case, as in so many you have done your nation a great service.
(Douglas W. Kmiec is the Caruso Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, School of Law.)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Moral Obligation To Study Election Returns
24 Nov 2008 04:47 pm
George Weigel, on the election and the Catholic vote:
This year,
the pro-abortion candidate carried every state in what Maggie Gallagher
calls the "Decadent Catholic Corridor" -- the Northeast and the older
parts of the Midwest. Too many Catholics there are still voting the way
their grandparents did, and because that's what their grandparents did.
This tribal voting has been described by some bishops as immoral; it is
certainly stupid, and it must be challenged by adult education. That
includes effective use of the pulpit to unsettle settled patterns of
mindlessness. This year, a gratifying number of bishops began to accept
the responsibilities of their teaching office; so, now, must parish
pastors.
In
1980, '84 and '88, Republican (and pro-life) Presidential candidates
managed to capture nearly all of the Midwest and the Northeast,
"settled patterns of mindlessness" notwithstanding. Now here we are
twenty years later, with FDR and JFK even further in the rearview
mirror - and yet Weigel wants to chalk up the Republican Party's
horrible showing in these regions to mindless "tribal voting" among
Catholic Democrats? This is self-deception, and it ill-behooves
pro-lifers to engage in it. John McCain did not lose this election
because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly
enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were
voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out
misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and
because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans
than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown. And pro-lifers who see the
GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to
look the party's failures squarely in the face and work to fix them,
instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life
voting.
No, social conservatives aren't the problem
for the GOP. But they haven't been the solution, either: Too often, on
matters ranging from the Iraq War to domestic policy, they've served as
enablers of Republican folly, rather than as constructive critics. And
calling Catholics who voted for Obama "mindless" and "stupid" is a poor
substitute for building the sort of Republican Party that can attract
the votes of those millions of Americans, Catholic and otherwise, who
voted for the Democrats because they thought, not without reason, that
George W. Bush was a disastrous president whose party should not be
rewarded with a third term in the White House
