By Stephen Hart
The Catholic Church’s rebuke of Drs. Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler was completely proportional to the theologians’ actions.
By now you’ve heard of their book, “The Sexual Person,” and how they propose to turn Catholic sexual ethics on its head.
The fact of the matter is that Drs. Salzman and Lawler broke their personal commitments, called mandata, with Omaha’s archbishop that they would teach in “full communion” with the Catholic Church.
While claiming to remain firmly within the Catholic tradition, their book does anything but. I reviewed it for my final paper when I took Dr. Salzman’s theological ethics class two years ago.
Reminding the theologians publicly that their ideas are erroneous and showing how their work is flawed, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has hardly committed some gross mistreatment against the pair.
If Drs. Salzman and Lawler want to push hard on a radical departure of Catholic sexual ethics, it is wholly appropriate to let Catholic authorities have a forum to make their own comments.
It is this point that last week’s columnist seems to rue so much.
For the Catholic Church to survive, he says, it must stop criticizing others and look at its own hypocrisy (referencing the sexual abuse crisis of the past year).
I’m all for rooting out hypocrisy within the Church, but should it come at the expense of witness? Should voices in the Church be silenced from criticizing error because the Church itself has flaws?
Archbishop Oscar Romero didn’t think so. In the Salvadoran Civil War, several priests took up arms as guerillas in the name of the Church against the military government. They acted despite the well-known fact that, as representatives of the Church, priests in particular are never to resort to active violence.
Romero, however, did not let their serious lapse in judgment stop him from denouncing violence. Similarly, the Catholic Church should continue to voice its witness on matters of sexual morality.
Like so many people, last week’s columnist seems to think that the mission of the Catholic Church is to fashion itself according to public opinion so that it can remain relevant (whatever that means). But this is wrong: its mission is to witness to the whole truth of Jesus Christ, especially those parts which challenge the notions of any given society.
And the Catholic Church’s witness on sexuality is indeed challenging for Western society today.
Where some stress whimsical indulgence, it calls for temperance. Where some, such as Drs. Salzman and Lawler, offer a slapdash, emotive basis for sex, the Catholic Church appeals to a norm that is consistent and internally rational.
Surprised? Many just think that its teachings on sex are motivated out of hate, control or fear; such thoughts, however, show a profound lack of knowledge. But don’t take my word for it.
If you are someone who has a real problem with authentic Catholic sexual ethics, I challenge you not only to understand more fully what the Church teaches on sex, but why it does so.
Instead of relying on others to tell you what the Church believes, find out for yourself by reading its own documents. Instead of listening to your iPod on your next road trip, listen to a CD that explains its teaching. You may not agree, but at least you have taken steps to avoid a poorly formed opinion.
Few do.