The Fathers of the Church on Sex

I have just encountered this useful summary of the general attitude of the Fathers of the Church toward sex. Spoiler alert: they are not fans. Surely their disdain for sex was a factor in choosing to be celibate, as nearly every Father of the Church was. (Tertullian, who may have been a layman, has left us an address to his wife, and St. Gregory of Nyssa was a widower before he embraced the monastic life and became a bishop).

That matrimony as such is not sinful the Fathers are agreed, the odd eccentric apart, yet the concession turns out to mean disappointingly little, to judge by the pronouncements of some of the most venerated authorities among them. Not only is the use of marriage sinful during pregnancy (St. Jerome, Comm. in Eph. iii) or lactation (St. Gregory in Bede's Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl., 1.27), but the very institution of marriage is due simply to the need for avoiding fornication (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. on I Cor. 7.2). A greater evil is escaped by tolerating a lesser: it is bad to use marriage (for St. Paul says it is good not to touch a woman [1 Cor 7:1]), but worse to fornicate (St. Jerome, Adv. Jovin. 1.7). St. John was not martyred, because he was unmarried, but St. Peter, although he left his wife when he followed Christ, still wiped out the dirtiness of his marriage by shedding his blood (ibid., 1.26). For St. Augustine ... nothing casts down the manly spirit more than love making (I Solil., 10), though the shame attached to it is fallen man's penalty, not itself a sin (De Nupt. et Conc. I, 5), Augustine never, to my knowledge, claims that sexual activity is sinful as such. At the same time, he limits its sinlessness to when the action is performed for the procreation of children or to pay the marriage debt, not when it is done for mutual enjoyment (De Bono Conj. 6). A papal endorsement of this is given by St. Gregory the Great in his letter to St. Augustine of Canterbury .... There is no fault in the pains of childbirth, he says, but there is in flesh[l]y pleasure. After intercourse, a man may not enter a church without penance and washing, for till the fire of concupiscence has died down he is unworthy through the wickedness of his evil will. Marriage is not unlawful but its use is impossible without blameworthy desire.
(G. Egner [pseudonym of P. J. Fitzpatrick], Birth Regulation and Catholic Belief: A Study in Problems and Possibilities [London: 1966], 127)

And:

The charge that the Fathers we have quoted said sex was sinful is, as it stands, too vague to be justified. But the cheerful denial commonly made to the charge is extremely misleading. True enough, the Fathers did attack heretics who taught that marriage was sinful; true also, they did not hold the act of marriage to be sinful as such. But they subordinated its use so severely to procreation that for fallen man to use his sexual faculties without sin turns out to be a difficult exercise in detachment rather than a gift of God used to love another of God's creatures to whom we have been united by him... (ibid., 129-30).

In the context of the book in which this analysis appears, Fitzpatrick is trying to show the difference between the present-day Catholic position on birth control and the older Catholic tradition. The modern position is much more liberal in that it forbids only the use of contraception, whereas the older position forbade having sex for any reason other than to have children (you could, however, acquiesce to your spouse's sinful request for sex without sinning yourself), for which reason contraception was obviously excluded. Fitzpatrick actually thinks that the older, ultra-conservative position, though repugnant, is more logically consistent, for he cannot see why, as a matter of logic, if it's okay to have sex with your spouse for fun or to show love, etc., as the Church says, it's not okay to use contraception. The Fathers would not approve the use of Natural Family Planning, as the Church today does. He thus seriously questions the validity of relying on the Fathers at all in trying to argue against contraception when their problem with contraception was a direct corollary of a view on sex no longer accepted within mainstream Catholicism: "If present-day Catholic thought gives more honourable a place to married sexuality than did the Fathers, are we entitled to doubt the value of appealing to them on questions about the purpose of marriage and its use?" He is being overly reserved, for obviously he means that the answer to this question is Yes. Of course, there are still Catholic traditionalists today who do espouse the older view, but they are marginalized.

As for my opinion, I will say that, at the very least, one who thinks (in the face of much evidence to the contrary!) that the Fathers having something edifying to say to Christians today about sex will have to approach them with an already-established hermeneutic and theory of sex in hand, by which he or she will be able to find any diamonds in the rough of their harsh and seemingly inhumane words. Otherwise you're just going to be either appalled or become a traditionalist, depending on your personal bias.

St. Basil on Credit-Card Debt

"He lends no money at interest."
— Psalm 15:5a

Truly, usury involves the greatest inhumanity, since the one in need of necessities seeks a loan for the relief of his life, and the other, because he is not satisfied with the capital, contrives revenues for himself from the misfortunes of the poor person and gathers wealth. The Lord has laid a clear command on us by saying: "And do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow" (Matthew 5:42b). But when the greedy person sees someone by necessity bent down before his knees as a petitioner, practicing all humility and uttering all kinds of requests, he does not pity the one who is suffering misfortunes beyond what he deserves. He takes no account of his nature; he does not yield to his petitions; but he stands rigid and harsh, yielding to no supplications, touched by no tears, persevering in his refusal. Because he calls down curses on himself and swears that he is entirely without money and is himself looking around to see if he can find someone who lends money out at interest, he is believed in his lie because of his oaths and incurs the guilt of perjury as the evil profits of his inhumanity. But when the one who is seeking the loan mentions interest and names his securities, then he pulls down his eyebrows, smiles, and remembers somewhere or other a family friendship. He addresses him as "Associate" and "Friend" and says, "I will see if I have any money at all reserved. There is a deposit of a dear friend who entrusted it to me for matters of business. He has assigned a heavy interest for it, but I will certainly remit some and give it at a lower rate of interest." Once he has made such pretenses and fawned upon and enticed the wretched person with such words, he binds him with contracts. Then, after he has imposed on the person the loss of his freedom in addition to his oppressing poverty, he leaves. By making himself responsible for the interest (of the full payment of which he has no idea) he accepts a voluntary servitude for life.

Tell me: do you seek money and financial resources from a poor person? If he had been able to make you richer, why would he have knocked on your door? When he came for help, he found hostility. When he looked for antidotes, he found poisons. It was your duty to relieve the person's destitution, but you sought to drain the desert dry and increased his need. Just as if a doctor were to visit the sick and instead of restoring health to them take away even their little remnant of physical strength, so you also would make the misfortunes of the wretched an opportunity for revenue. And, just as farmers pray for rain for the growth of their crops, so you also ask for poverty and need among human beings so that your money may be productive for you. Don't you know that you're making an addition to your sins greater than the increase to your wealth that you are planning from the interest? Whenever the one who is seeking the loan considers his poverty, he stops in the middle of his difficulties and despairs of the payment. Nevertheless, when he considers his present need, he makes a rash bid for the loan. And so the one is overcome by yielding to his need, and the other leaves after having protected himself with securities and contracts.

— St. Basil, Homily on Psalm 15 (section 1)
Adapted from the translation of Sr. Way
Exegetic Homilies (Washington, D.C.: 1963), pp. 182-83

What real persecution against Christians looks like

The incomparable Catholic journalist John L. Allen has today called for the canonization as a martyr of Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs, who was assassinated by the Taliban just over a year ago. I can't personally vouch for the man, but I trust Allen's judgment, who says that he was:

A veteran activist on behalf of religious minorities in his overwhelming Muslim society, including outspoken opposition to the country's notorious blasphemy laws, Bhatti had become a global symbol of tolerance, and his death, therefore, a dramatic reminder of the violent face of intolerance. . . .The assassination was likely triggered by Bhatti's defense of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws.

To canonize Bhatti as a martyr would be a political move, like giving out the Nobel Peace Prize. But, given that we live during times when "about 150,000 Christians are today killed around the world every year, either out of hatred for the faith or for works of charity inspired by the faith" (ibid.), this is a political move that we need.

Violent persecution against religious minorities, including Christians, is a real evil not widely known about by Americans, which is why I get embarrassed when I hear American Christians (sometimes even Catholic bishops) arguing that they are being persecuted by the powers that be in Washington. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to complain about the HHS contraception mandate and plenty of room to debate all its implications, both political and moral, but let's save the word persecution for the real deal.

In defense of the Catholic Church's dissenters (or, "CDF vs. LCWR")

The recent release by the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) of a "Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious [LCWR]," which represents 80% of all women religious (aka Sisters or nuns) in the U.S. is yet another example of the Catholic Church's ongoing struggle with dissent. It seems to me that this struggle first exploded on July 25, 1968, when Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Catholic Church's position against contraception. Most Catholic theologians, it seems to me, immediately dissented, either publicly or privately, from this act of the pope's teaching authority (magisterium). Many Catholic bishops also disagreed with the pope. The issue runs deeper than contraception as well, as some Catholic moral theologians have subsequently argued that homosexual acts are not intrinsically evil (notably Fr. Charles Curran, who consequently had his "canonical mission" to teach theology at a pontifical university withdrawn by the CDF in 1986). The gulf within the Catholic Church only widened when Blessed John Paul II, on May 22, 1994, issued his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, reaffirming the Catholic Church's position against ordaining women priests. Most Catholic theologians, again, immediately dissented, either publicly or privately, from this act of the pope's magisterium, and many Catholic bishops also disagreed. (Another notable moment of contention was August 6, 2000, when the CDF released the declaration Dominus Iesus, which in the name of John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's "salvific universality" over against all other religions and Christian denominations.) The CDF's assessment of the LCWR specifically mentions that group's public dissent on these two issues:

"The CDF notes the absence of initiatives by the LCWR aimed at promoting the reception of the Church’s teaching, especially on difficult issues such as Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis and Church teaching about homosexuality" (III, 1, p. 6).

The current pope, Benedict XVI, clearly supports these teachings of his predecessors, in spite of continued dissent.

The problem of dissent results from an ambiguity within Catholic teaching that cannot be neatly resolved. This ambiguity, it seems to me, is particularly problematic for Catholic traditionalists (e.g., the blogging crusader, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf) who swiftly write off dissenters as, basically, false Catholics. On the one hand, Vatican II teaches that all Catholics must offer a "religious obsequium of intellect and will . . . to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff . . . [and] sincerely adhere to decisions made by him" (Lumen Gentium, no. 25). Because of the importance of this paragraph, obsequium has been variously translated as docility (in Austin Flannery, OP, ed. [1996]) or submission (on the Vatican's website). I doubt that anyone could deny that the teachings of Paul VI and John Paul II on these issues constitute acts of "the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff," so case closed, right? Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Not necessarily. For even according to Catholic theologians who do religiously submit their intellects and minds to the papal magisterium (among whom I strive by the grace of God to number myself), the obligation to submit is not absolute. This is easily proven. A preconciliar manual of dogmatic theology published by Ludwig Ott in 1952 (Grundriss der Katholischen Dogmatik = Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, translated by Patrick Lynch, 4th edition, 1960) states:

"By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision [of the Teaching Authority of the Church] rests on an error" (10).

Likewise, a cardinal, Avery Dulles, SJ, said in a lecture in 1988:

"The service of theology to the magisterium can, on occasion, involve criticism. Scholarly investigation may indicate that some reformable teaching of the Church needs to be modified. . . . If so, theologians have the right and even the duty to make their views known. . . . It is difficult to deny that critical questioning of magisterial teaching may sometimes be legitimate" ("Teaching Authority in the Church," in Church and Society: The Laurence J. McGinley Lectures, 1988-2007, 16-26 [NY: Fordham University Press, 2008], 22-23).

Dulles specifically cites the great theological architects of Vatican II, Frs. Henri de Lubac, SJ, Yves Congar, OP, John Courtney Murray, SJ, and Karl Rahner, SJ, as examples of theologians who made great contributions to the Catholic Church by dissenting "cautiously" and with "loyalty and obedience" (ibid.) from some of the teachings of Pope Pius XII. Those who wish to condemn dissenting theologians (or Sisters) as being disobedient and faithless must certainly respond to these facts. In no way am I arguing that theological dissent is always and automatically justified, or that either Paul VI or John Paul II were wrong on these issues, or that the CDF's doctrinal assessment of the LCWR is bad and wrong. I am saying only that Catholics who do reject the Church's teachings on women's ordination and contraception (or, by extension, homosexuality) cannot automatically be condemned ipso facto as faithless, disloyal, or disobedient (and certainly not as heretics, since neither Paul VI nor John Paul II asserted that their doctrines had been revealed by God).

Harold Camping finally apologizes

Remember when the so-called Rapture of true believers (a false doctrine, if you ask me, invented in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby) was supposed to happen on May 21 of last year? Well, the false doomsday prophet Harold Camping has finally issued a public apology (the link is on Family Radio's homepage). He admits not just that he was wrong (obviously), but that he sinned by arrogantly claiming to know when the world would end:

We were even so bold as to insist that the Bible guaranteed that Christ would return on May 21 and that the true believers would be raptured. Yet this incorrect and sinful statement allowed God to get the attention of a great many people who otherwise would not have paid attention. Even as God used sinful Balaam to accomplish His purposes, so He used our sin to accomplish His purpose of making the whole world acquainted with the Bible. However, even so, that does not excuse us. We tremble before God as we humbly ask Him for forgiveness for making that sinful statement. We are so thankful that God is so loving that He will forgive even this sin. 

Throughout the letter, he insists that God accomplished good through this debacle (always true). He completely fails to acknowledge the harm that was done because of him, how it brought disrepute upon the Gospel, and also how it led many (foolish) people to waste a great deal of time and money promoting a false prophecy around the country through billboards and renting RVs.

Camping does have something else nice to say, something so many people tried to tell him a long time ago, about why a person should read the Bible:

[We] continue to even more fervently search the Scriptures (the Bible), not to find dates, but to be more faithful in our understanding.

The cynical side of me tells me that the board of Family Radio probably put great pressure on Camping to produce this statement. Perhaps they even wrote it for him. Anyway, it's still nice to see an apology, even if it's too little, too late. If he's truly sorry in his heart (whatever he may say to the public), then God will show mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pope responds to Austrian priests' "Appeal to Disobedience"

Last year about 400 Austrian priests signed an "Appeal to Disobedience," calling for, inter alia, the ordination of women and married men in order to solve the increasing problem of a severe shortage of priests in the Catholic Church. This morning, in his homily for the annual Chrism Mass at which priests renew the vows they made at ordination, the Holy Father responded to the appeal. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time he has addressed it publicly. Notice how he says "a European country" instead of "Austria." He said:

Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. Is disobedience a path of renewal for the Church? We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the Church, that they are convinced that the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and to bring the Church up to date. But is disobedience really a way to do this? Do we sense here anything of that configuration to Christ which is the precondition for all true renewal, or do we merely sense a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?

But let us not oversimplify matters. Surely Christ himself corrected human traditions which threatened to stifle the word and the will of God? Indeed he did, so as to rekindle obedience to the true will of God, to his ever enduring word. His concern was for true obedience, as opposed to human caprice. Nor must we forget: he was the Son, possessed of singular authority and responsibility to reveal the authentic will of God, so as to open up the path for God’s word to the world of the nations. And finally: he lived out his task with obedience and humility all the way to the Cross, and so gave credibility to his mission. Not my will, but thine be done: these words reveal to us the Son, in his humility and his divinity, and they show us the true path.

Let us ask again: do not such reflections serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No. Anyone who considers the history of the post-conciliar era can recognize the process of true renewal, which often took unexpected forms in living movements and made almost tangible the inexhaustible vitality of holy Church, the presence and effectiveness of the Holy Spirit. And if we look at the people from whom these fresh currents of life burst forth and continue to burst forth, then we see that this new fruitfulness requires being filled with the joy of faith, the radicalism of obedience, the dynamic of hope and the power of love.

(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20120405_messa-crismale_en.html)

I love how the pope engages the issue seriously and thoughtfully, rather than replying with a bombastic condemnation. In fact, while firmly rejecting disobedience to the hierarchy as a valid choice for Catholic priests, he even displays some sympathy:

We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the Church, that they are convinced that the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and to bring the Church up to date.

He does not wish to condemn, nor does he threaten to excommunicate, these 400 priests; he wishes to persuade them that, even if they are convinced that women ought to be ordained, disobedience to the hierarchy would be inconsistent with their vocation as Catholic priests. I hope that even those who agree with these Austrian priests and not the Bishop of Rome can appreciate how the thoughtfulness and gentility of the latter's response, which is neither authoritarian nor heavy-handed. Indeed, I have never seen any evidence that Benedict has ever acted in an authoritarian or heavy-handed way, nor employed the vitriolic rhetoric some people use to attack the more "progressive" wing of the Catholic Church. This is a pope who wishes to preserve the unity of the Catholic Church in the face of the many crises it faces at this time (notice how he uses the word "dramatic" to describe the situation of the Church today).

The pope also grants that these self-proclaimed rebels proceed from a correct assumption, namely that human traditions sometimes stifle the word and will of God:

Surely Christ himself corrected human traditions which threatened to stifle the word and the will of God? Indeed he did.

On the other hand, he flat-out rejects another assumption as false, namely that talk of obedience is merely a conservative smoke-screen meant to deflect criticism and prevent reform:

Do not such reflections [i.e., on obedience] serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No.

He then refers to the many reforms and changes in Church practice and teaching after Vatican II, to which obviously these Austrian priests would refer to support their own advocacy for change, and argues that those reforms emerged from people who were obedient, not disobedient, to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. As far as I know, that is true, though it's also true that many of the great theologians (e.g., Henri de Lubac, SJ, John Courtney Murray, SJ, and Karl Rahner, SJ -- all Jesuits, for what it's worth!) whose ideas lie behind Vatican II were censured and held in suspicion by the Vatican prior to the Ecumenical Council.

What is the purpose of the Church?

A counterpoint to my previous post, about why people leave the Catholic Church. After reading Lumen Gentium, chapter 1 (from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, 1962-65), I asked my students what they think the purpose of there being a Church is. Here is part of one student's reply that I thought had an elegant simplicity to it. Nothing fancy, but true: "[The Church] brings all people together, it doesn't matter where you come from or what you look like because when you are in Church no one is judging you[,] and even though everyone has different reasons to be there, there is also one big reason[,] and that is to celebrate the [L]ord."

Can I get an Amen?