For a theologian, a handful of peer reviews is expected to come across one’s desk following the publication of a major work. But, when one such review is signed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, even the theologian may be a bit surprised.
On Sept. 15, Dr. Todd Salzman, chair of the Theology department, and Dr. Michael Lawler, Creighton professor emeritus, received one of these USCCB criticisms. Salzman declined to comment.
A review on Georgetown University Press’ website by Dr. Christopher Vogt of St. John’s University stated that Salzman and Lawler’s work is “an engaging, well-researched book that handles extremely complicated and controversial questions in a nuanced and intellectually rigorous manner. It deserves serious attention from members of the church and the academy.”
The book received its first attention in 2008, shortly after publication when then Archbishop Elden Curtiss wrote a letter concerning the content of the book, specifically that its “conclusion is in serious error and cannot be considered authentic Catholic teaching.”
Archbishop Curtiss’ concerns with the book include arguments that legitimate some homosexual acts, the use of contraception and prenuptial cohabitation and sex among betrothed, unmarried couples. The arguments are derived from a revisionist phase of Catholic ethics following the reforms set in place by Vatican II. Salzman and Lawler construct a renewed, personalist, relational anthropology based on Vatican II documents to judge sexual acts.
“Their close study of specific magisterial texts underlines inconsistencies that arise as the implications of an experiential and personalist ethic are glossed over,” said Dr. Rosemarie Gorman of Fairfield University in the Religious Studies Review from Rice University. ” ‘The Sexual Person’ challenges the community to discern the potential meanings of texts from within a relational anthropology that transforms [its] perspective.”
Salzman and Lawler’s book looks into the recent advances in science and what has been concluded about homosexual individuals, noting that this must be taken into account when formulating ethical theory. The point is grounded on the idea of holistic complementarity, or how two individuals become one, as is explained through marriage. Salzman and Lawler suggest the magisterial teaching on this is flawed in that it strictly assumes that individuals are naturally drawn to members of the opposite sex.
In seeing scientific evidence proving otherwise, Salzman and Lawler look to broaden this complementarity definition to include personal complementarity. Magisterial teaching has genital complementarity as a prerequisite of unitive acts. Salzman and Lawler argue that “the genitals are at the service of personal complementarity.” This means that such acts as premarital sex and homosexual intercourse are naturally human acts and not subject to moral scrutiny.
“There are, however, two flaws in this argument,” the USCCB stated in its report. “First, an examination of the structure of the argument reveals that it is circular, for it depends on the authors’ prior assumption that homosexual activity is ‘natural’ for those with a homosexual inclination.”
The USCCB said it is not logical to jump to the conclusion that homosexual acts are natural to those inclined to the homosexual orientation.
Catholic ethics depend on two factors: scripture and natural law, according to the USCCB. They claim that Salzman and Lawler’s criticism of these two factors was insufficient to stand ground in Catholic moral teaching even with scientific evidence and modern situations.
The current Archbishop of Omaha, George Lucas, upholds the claims of his predecessor as this topic continues to be debated and discussed. Some Creighton students agree with the Church’s standing.
“As a Jesuit Catholic University we need to follow what the Vatican says,” said Business senior Christopher Schorgl. “If a professor has other opinions that they want to write about, that is fine, but they need to keep it out of the classroom.”
Tera Lutz, Arts & Sciences junior, said whether or not her views coincide with Catholic Doctrine, she still feels it is a good thing to know.
“I have never had a professor in my theology classes at Creighton force their beliefs on me,” Lutz said. “They just present Catholic teaching and leave it at that for you to form your own opinion.”
The evolution of circumstances in the modern world presents a lot of struggle to the developing Catholic ideas following the reforms of Vatican II.
“Times have changed and we need to keep an open mind,” Schorgl said. “We are entitled to our own interpretations of the Bible within the guidelines of doctrine.”
As this situation develops, students question the role that the University should be playing.
“Creighton needs to be a third-party medium,” Lutz said. “Just because the article came out doesn’t make it Creighton’s ideal, and I think people can discern that for themselves.”
The Rev. John P. Schlegel, S.J., said in his message to the Creighton community that, “Creighton has a very positive relationship with the Archdiocese of Omaha, and we have been in close communication on this matter.
“As we have often discussed, a Catholic university sometimes walks a fine line between academic freedom and Church doctrine. Creighton respects the academic freedom of its faculty to dialogue on societal issues; in studying and researching, new and sometimes controversial ideas are explored, examined and exposed to scholarly scrutiny,” Schlegel said.