|
Volume 3, Chapter
IV
Vatican
Condemns the Book Human Sexuality
The
Remnant – 17 August 1979
The Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a letter to the U.S.
bishops, has declared that the notorious book, Human Sexuality,
contains fundamental errors that cannot be reconciled with traditional
Catholic teaching.
The book was
edited by the Rev. Anthony Kosnik and commissioned by the Catholic
Theological Society of America. It was published in the U. S. in
1977.
In a letter
to Archbishop Quinn, President of the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, Franjo Cardinal Seper, head of the Vatican office responsible
for defending the Faith, also criticized the prestigious Catholic
Theological Society that commissioned the book published by the
Paulist Press. "The Congregation," Cardinal Seper said,
"cannot fail to note its concern that a distinguished society
of Catholic theologians would have arranged for the publication
of this report in such a way as to give broad distribution to the
erroneous principles and conclusions of this book and in this way
provide a source of confusion among the people of God."
The book in
question is said to have been sold in the tens of thousands of copies.
Written by five Catholic theologians, it purports to offer "guidelines"
for sexual morality differing from the Church's familiar "thou-shalt-not"
approach. It recommends that faithful Catholics, in judging what
constitutes appropriate sexual behavior, should try to determine
whether their acts and attitudes are "self-liberating, other-enriching,
honest, faithful (emphasizing stable relationships), socially responsible,
life- serving and joyous."
Cardinal Seper's
letter criticizes these "purely subjective criteria…that yield
no manageable or helpful rules for serious conscience-formation
in matters of sexuality." Similarly, the Vatican document takes
issue with the book's tendency to subject "theological and
scientific arguments…to criteria derived from one's present experience
of what is human or less than human. This gives rise to a relativism
in human conduct which recognizes no absolute values. Given these
criteria, it is small wonder that this book pays such scant attention
to the doctrine of the Magisterium, whose clear teaching and helpful
norms of morality it often openly contradicts."
*
* * *
Cardinal Seper
rightly stressed the fact that this degrading book was produced
by a distinguished society of Catholic theologians.” There is little
doubt that these theologians, distinguished principally by their
un-catholicity, represent mainstream thinking on moral theology
within the Catholic establishment in the United States today. This
thinking has been described aptly by Msgr. John McCarthy as “pornology."1
While it is true that the book was criticized by the American Bishops'
Committee on Doctrine in November 1977, it cannot be denied that
the Theological Society could not have become dominated by Liberals
or have published this book without at least the passive acquiescence
of the hierarchy. It is certainly arguable that no criticism would
have come from the bishops had it not been for widespread public
protests by lay groups and journals such as The Wanderer.
What is astonishing
is that, to the best of my knowledge, no disciplinary action was
taken against the priests responsible for a book which pays “such
scant attention to the doctrine of the Magisterium." Not one
of them was suspended a divinis, despite their cooperation
in publishing a book which undermined the entire basis of Catholic
morality. Surely, even the sternest critic of Archbishop Lefebvre
would have to agree that the offense
for which he was suspended, ordaining priests who would uphold Catholic
moral teaching, is totally insignificant when set beside that of
these theologians. Such critics would also have to agree that the
action taken against these theologians, a reprimand accompanied
by no sanctions, is ludicrously inadequate. Having said this, the
fact that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
did at least condemn the book is something for which we should be
grateful.2
Catechesi
tradendæ
Apostolic
Exhortation of Pope John Paul II
16
October 1979
One of the
greatest causes of concern among the faithful since the Second Vatican
Council has been the deterioration in the standard of religious
education (catechesis) given to Catholic children in schools and
catechism classes. In the years immediately following the Council
parents began to notice that the content of what their children
were taught was being continually diluted. Little emphasis, if any
emphasis at all, was placed upon memorizing fundamentals of the
Faith, such as the Seven Sacraments or the Ten Commandments. Considerable
stress was laid upon the children's own experience of life. A great
deal of time was devoted to such activities as drawing a map of
the route the child took to school, or making lists of things he
liked or did not like. Parents who voiced their anxieties were told
that this was meaningful, in accordance with modern educational
methods, or in the "spirit of Vatican II" – possibly a
combination of all three.
As the years
passed what purported to be Catholic catechesis often degenerated
to the lowest common denominator Christianity, or even humanism.
This consisted principally of loving one's neighbor, being kind
to animals, and helping the "third world." A stage was
reached when children not only failed to receive systematic instruction
in the truths of their Faith, but were actually being taught error.
Many orthodox
priests and teachers joined parents in protesting at the travesty
of the Faith which was being foisted upon Catholic children. The
tactic employed against them most frequently was the argument from
authority. Diocesan bishops had appointed catechetical directors
to ensure that catechetical instruction within their dioceses was
effectively "renewed." These men were "experts,"
and those who had the temerity to criticize them must, ipso facto,
be doing so from either ignorance or malice. These catechetical
II experts" had, in most cases, spent time in catechetical
institutes where they had been indoctrinated in Modernism. They
emerged as men with a mission, the mission of teaching a new religion
under the guise of new teaching methods.
In the late
sixties and the early and mid-seventies, most diocesan bishops,
at least in English-speaking countries, tended to be men who were
basically orthodox and who had been appointed before or soon after
the Second Vatican Council. But, nonetheless, they almost invariably
sided with their catechetical directors when these men were criticized,
no matter how justified or how well documented these criticisms
were. The reason for this attitude is simple. The catechetical directors
had been appointed by the bishops. The programs they had introduced
were imposed with the authority of the bishops. If these programs
were defective or harmful, then the prestige of the bishops was
involved. It is not exaggerating in any way to claim that most diocesan
bishops would have preferred to have all the children in their dioceses
leave Catholic schools totally ignorant of the Faith rather than
admit that they had made an error of judgment.3
The fruits of this attitude were made clear in a survey carried
out in one English diocese in 1985 which revealed that only 10%
of the pupils from Catholic schools had an adequate level of belief,
practice and knowledge. The rest were likely to lapse before or
soon after leaving school. The survey also found that as the children
moved upwards through the school system their knowledge
of the Faith did not increase, and their level of practice decreased,
In the language of post-conciliar Catholicism, this situation is
referred to as a catechetical "renewal."
Canon
George Telford
England was
fortunate in having one very orthodox catechetical director who
made a courageous public defense of the right of Catholic children
to be taught the Catholic Faith in Catholic schools. The priest
in question is Canon George Telford who was Catechetical Director
of the Archdiocese of Southwark and Vice-chairman of the Department
of Catechetics for the entire country. He eventually resigned from
both positions when he found that, within the catechetical establishment,
he was waging an almost single-handed fight for orthodoxy, and was
receiving no support whatsoever from the bishops as a body, although
some of them gave him their support privately. Canon Telford concluded
that it was pointless continuing what was evidently a hopeless struggle.
He wrote a very forceful letter which he sent to every member of
the hierarchy. This letter was published in the April 1977, issue
of Christian Order, and it summarized exactly the type of
religious instruction which was being imparted at that time in most
Western countries:
Modern catechetics
is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its structures
and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for the Catholic
Faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution. The authentic
renewal of catechesis will come not from them but from the faithful.
Catechesi
tradendæ
In October
1979, the second year of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II certainly
gave considerable cause for hope to all those who had been involved
in the fight for orthodox catechesis. In his Apostolic Exhortation,
Catechesi tradendæ, he appeared to be echoing the anxiety
and indignation which so many of the faithful had been expressing
in so many countries. Their complaints had not simply been rejected,
but often ridiculed. But now the Supreme Pontiff himself made it
clear that this anxiety and indignation had been amply justified.
The Holy Father
claimed that many good and successful new catechetical books had
been produced. Then he continued:
But it must
be humbly and honestly recognized that this rich flowering has
brought with it articles and publications which are ambiguous
and harmful to young people and to the life of the Church. In
certain places, the desire to find the best forms of expression
or to keep up with fashions in pedagogical methods has often enough
resulted in certain catechetical works which bewilder the young
and even adults, either by deliberately or unconsciously omitting
elements essential to the Church's faith, or by attributing excessive
importance to certain themes at the expense of others, or, chiefly,
by a rather horizontalist overall view out of keeping with the
Church's Magisterium.
The Pope also
stated that it is quite useless "to campaign for the abandonment
of a serious and orderly study of the message of Christ in the name
of a method concentrating on life experience." He advocated
memorization and insisted that children should be taught the Faith
"not in mutilated, falsified or diminished form, but whole
and entire, in all its rigor and vigor…Thus, no true catechist can
lawfully, on his own initiative, make a selection of what he considers
important in the Deposit of Faith as opposed to what he considers
unimportant, so as to teach one and reject the other.” The Pope
condemned teachers who trouble the minds of children with"
outlandish theories, useless questions, and unproductive discussions"-
terms which are very reminiscent of Canon Telford's strictures.
Pope Paul VI
had also been very concerned at the extent to which unorthodox catechesis
had become apparent early in his pontificate. He responded to this
with two key documents. The first was his Credo of the People
of God (30 June 1968), which reaffirmed the principal doctrines
of our Faith using, in many instances, the terminology of the Council
of Trent. The second was the General Catechetical Directory (11
April 1971), which listed the basic doctrines which every Catholic
child was entitled to know.4
In Catechesi
tradendæ, Pope John Paul II specified these documents as basic
sources for the doctrinal content of religious instruction. This
was precisely what orthodox parents, teachers, and priests had been
demanding. Thus; this apostolic exhortation, together with other
acts of the Pope in 1979, gave good reason for hope that there might
at last be a return to sound religious instruction for Catholic
children.
1.
Living Tradition, January, 1987, p. 7.
2.
The condemnation of the book Human Sexuality by the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith is dated 13 July 1979. The full text
is available in Flannery, Vol. II.
3.
In August 1974 a 96-page dossier I had written concerning the catechetical
director of the Archdiocese of Liverpool was published by Approaches.
It consisted principally of a series of statements of fact. It was
sent to the Archbishop of Liverpool and to every head teacher and
parish priest in his diocese. The Archbishop's reaction was to express
his total confidence in the catechetical director despite the fact
that he was unable to refute a single statement in the Dossier which
was entitled appropriately, The Fort Betrayed. This was a reference
to the remark made by St. John Fisher concerning the apostate hierarchy
of England during the reign of Henry VIII: "The fort is betrayed
even of them that should have defended it."
4.
These two documents, together with Catechesi tradendæ, are available
in Flannery, Vol. II.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
|
