I have been mulling over the recent support given by the Catholic Theological Society of America to Sr. Margaret Farley.
Let’s be clear about a large slice of the group. There is in the CTSA a serious percentage of self-legitimating theologians who have the smugness of the academic elites. They don’t want to admit that – as the trends are changing – they are more and more irrelevant in their Catholic institutions. Thus, they can bask in Sr. Farley’s celebrity for a moment or two and be heroes by supporting her!
Think about the objections the liberals have to what the CDF has done. They don’t say that proper procedures weren’t followed. They don’t deny that the CDF reflects the Church’s promulgated teachings. They don’t say that Farley’s book is not in harmony with what you find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They cede that what the CDF Note reflects is “official” teaching. What they are saying is that what the CDF Note reflects shouldn’t be official teaching.
They say catholics believe other things. Therefore, the theology “of the Vatican” is not the theology of “the majority of Catholics”. They juxtapose two different kinds of Magisterium.
Also, the CTSA should be a scholarly group. They laud Sr. Farley’s book as a great piece of scholarship. The problem is that Sr. Farley’s book isn’t all that impressive from that point of view. It doesn’t reflect a lot of hard work or research. Sure, there are a few footnotes and a little bibliography, but hers is not the well-researched book one would expect at a high level of theological reflection. Or is the standard for certain authors a bit more … relaxed?
To be fair, Farley doesn’t cite Oprah, but she does The Kinsey Report.
Instead, what substitutes for work in Sr. Farley’s book is personal experience.
You might think about it this way.
The Poor have experience X, therefore Y should be done for them.
Sr. Farley wants justice for the “oppressed”. She morphs something like the “preferential option for the poor” into something like the “preferential option for the lesbian”. Lesbians are the new poor and marginalized. Lesbians are the new anawim! They need a new sexual ethic.
Research might be a little thin when it comes to this claim.
So, where do you ground your arguments? In your personal experiences and those of your students.
Think about it this way:
A 20 year old would-be lesbian comes to your office during office hours and breaks down crying. She was abused, she is a little over-weight, she is in tears. She comes out: she is a lesbian. You think, this is God’s daughter and she is in pain. I have to give her a sexual ethic that will free her from oppression.
Sr. Farley is perfecting soap-opera theology.