« Ministers of the Law | Main | Jesus Jo »

November 19, 2010

Anti-Catholicism from Catholics?

 

I would like to follow up on Rob’s earlier post of today (Worst op-ed of the year) regarding anti-Catholic opinion publishing. It strikes me that one can find a type of anti-Catholicism or anti-Church attitude among some members of the Church, too. How can that be?

For example, Professor Lisa Fullam posted yesterday at dotCommonweal [HERE] a contribution entitled “Marriage Becoming Obsolete” which served as her commentary on the recent Pew Research Center survey report suggesting that 39% of Americans consider that the institution of marriage—be it civil or sacramental or both—is becoming obsolete. I will not offer my thoughts on the Pew conclusions today, but I do address the personal points made by Professor Fullam. She has previously been the subject of discussions by other members of the Mirror of Justice company. [HERE and HERE] For those who do not know her or unfamiliar with her, she is an associate professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University in Berkeley (JSTSCUB). Amongst the courses she teaches are fundamental moral theology and sexual ethics.

In her commentary on the Pew Research Center report to which I have referred, she makes some startling assertions that, if they were not made by someone who is a ranked faculty member at an institution that prepares candidates for ministry in the Roman Catholic Church, could readily be classified as uniformed, perhaps even anti-Catholic. Although the JSTSCUB states that it “discharges its apostolic commitments by means of its critical fidelity to the Roman Catholic tradition,” it seems that Professor Fullam’s commitments which might be critical of Roman Catholic teachings stray from being faithful to them. Perhaps I am mistaken in this claim, but then I recall what she says in her recent posting.

She begins by relying on a statement by one of the Pew researchers that “there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them.” Well, the fact that some noticeable group accepts alternatives to norms that are made by intelligent persons taking stock of the intelligible reality does not make these “ways... [which] more people accept” normative or moral or consistent with the Church’s teachings.

Professor Fullam gets on board of a project to rethink “the Church’s pastoral strategy on matters including same-sex marriage and cohabitation.” As she states, the Church’s views on these two topics are, in her estimation, “sub-optimal”, but she does not explain why this is the case. She does acknowledge that the Church teaches that marriage is ordained to two objectives: the loving union of the couple—presumably constituted by one man and one woman—and the procreation of children. She further contends, however, that only the first objective is necessary. Moreover, she believes that the union of the couple is “prioritize[d].” While she believes that children are a great good, she further opines that they are “not necessary to the sacramentality of the bond.”

She attempts to justify these positions by making reference to Pope Pius XI. While she does not specify any particular written source authored by this pope, it is likely that she has in mind his 1930 encyclical letter Casti Connubii. But her reading of Pius XI regarding the priority of the loving union of the couple does not accord with what he actually said in this encyclical. As Pope Pius XI stated,

This sacredness of marriage which is intimately connected with religion and all that is holy, arises from the divine origin we have just mentioned, from its purpose which is the begetting and education of children for God, and the binding of man and wife to God through Christian love and mutual support; and finally it arises from the very nature of wedlock, whose institution is to be sought for in the farseeing Providence of God, whereby it is the means of transmitting life, thus making the parents the ministers, as it were, of the Divine Omnipotence.

In the end, her posting is not really intended as an exercise in “critical fidelity to the Roman Catholic tradition.” Rather, her intention is to provide for the coming of an ecclesiastical embracing of same-sex marriage. As she says, “So where people see same-sex couples loving each other deeply, raising children lovingly, and the USCCB describing even civil recognition of those unions as a ‘multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society,’ what are people to think we believe about marriage?” She contends that such relationships “should be supported and encouraged.” By whom? Well, by the Church! But she believes that the Church’s leadership does not understand how same-sex relationships are the equivalent of heterosexual unions. In her estimation, the bishops replace her understanding of the righteousness of same-sex unions with “gross and untrue insults.”     

But she offers a kind and gentle response to these “insults.” Her rejoinder is for “a new, pastorally sensitive theology of marriage, one that recognizes the importance and the beauty of the institution, that takes sexual orientation seriously, and that strives to support fallible and striving human beings in our attempts to become more loving.” Well, that is quite a proposal! But it is not a Catholic one.

Rather, it is tragic, misinformed, and anti-Catholic. It is tragic and misinformed because Professor Fullam assumes that any disagreement with her support of the normativity and righteousness of same-sex relations must necessarily be “gross and untrue insults.” But, they are not. To disagree with someone with different views on any subject—including same-sex marriage—is precisely that, to disagree—a disagreement that is based on intelligence comprehending and intelligible world. The nature of disagreement is to enter a debate with reasoned analysis and objective commentary supported by factual analyses. She fails to take stock of the inexorable, ontological differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships; moreover, she passes over the incapacity of same-sex couples to procreate without artificial reproductive technologies being utilized. So, to disagree is not to demean; to debate is not to insult; to contradict with objective reasoning is not to marginalize or unjustly discriminate.

In addition, her proposal is anti-Catholic because she does not explicate why the Church’s teachings about marriage versus same-sex unions are wrong. She only states that they are wrong by labeling the Church’s teachings as “gross and untrue insults” because they do not accord with her view—a view that would substitute sound and intelligible argument with subjectivism, relativism, and exaggerated autonomy.

 

RJA sj

 

Posted by Robert John Araujo, SJ on November 19, 2010 at 09:03 PM in Araujo, Robert | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e20133f6217517970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anti-Catholicism from Catholics?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fr. Araujo,

Before you go dispensing debating advice, you might want to make sure you're characterizing your opponent's argument fairly. You claim that Lisa Fullam wrote that "the Church’s views on these two topics are, in her estimation, 'sub-optimal,'" but that summary distorts her point. What she actually wrote was: "Here’s where I think the Church’s pastoral strategy on matters including same-sex marriage and cohabitation is sub-optimal." See what she's doing there? Pastoral strategy, as you know, is not the same as "the church's views" on this or that issue.

Posted by: Grant Gallicho | Nov 19, 2010 11:52:43 PM

"Anti-Catholicism," as the term is commonly used, implies not merely criticism of the Church or dissent from Church teachings, but bigotry. Charges of anti-Catholicism, like charges of anti-Semitism or racism, are very serious, and in my opinion ought not to be made lightly, especially by a Jesuit priest against a professor of moral theology at a Catholic University. This whole post reads more as personal criticism than "reasoned analysis and objective commentary supported by factual analyses." One would expect something less personally critical and condescending from someone who says "to disagree is not to demean; to debate is not to insult; to contradict with objective reasoning is not to marginalize or unjustly discriminate."

Professor Fullam nowhere makes a statement so grandiose as to claim "any disagreement with her support of the normativity and righteousness of same-sex relations must necessarily be 'gross and untrue insults.'” She accuses Church leadership with gross and untrue insults when they make claims such as the following:

**********
The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. Such recognition affects all people, married and non-married; not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom."
*********

I have read statements by many good and faithful Catholics who are in no way critical of Church teachings regarding homosexuality that same-sex marriage is in truth a minor matter compared to, say, no-fault divorce. Official Church documents use the most harsh and hyperbolic language to discuss homosexuality and same-sex unions. I don't think it is going too far to characterize some of the language as gross and untrue insults.

Back in August, I read that Cardinal Juan Sandoval, Archbishop of Guadalajara, angered over the Mexican Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex couples to adopt, asked reporters, “Who of you would like fags (maricones) and lesbians to be able to adopt?” I failed to bookmark the page, and in order to find it again I searched for "cardinal" and "maricones." To my surprise, the first hit I got was a story of *another* cardinal -- Dominican Republic Cardinal Jesús López Rodríguez -- referring in 2007 to homosexuals as "maricones." If this is how Church leaders speak to the press, is it too paranoid to ask what they say in private?

Posted by: David Nickol | Nov 20, 2010 12:19:36 AM

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Gallicho. I am grateful for the exchange. I do see clearly what Professor Fullam is saying. Having been a confessor and having served in many pastoral settings in many cities in several countries, I am familiar with pastoral sensitivity, but I know it must take stock of what we believe as Catholics, i.e., what the Church teaches. I know that pastoral sensitivity begins by working with people where they are. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But pastoral sensitivity, if it is true to its calling, must help the believer understand clearly the distinctions between what is good and what is not; what is sinful and what it virtuous. I do not see Professor Fullam's posting making this kind of distinction. Moreover, she seems to be arguing that sinfful relatioships can be sustained. Is this her pastoral stragtegy? It seems so. But if it is not her pastoral strategy, I look look forward to reading her clarification. Again, thanks very much for your comments. I am sincerely grateful for the exchange. RJA sj

Posted by: Robert John Araujo, S.J. | Nov 20, 2010 5:56:20 AM

The views of Professor Fullam remind me of an insightful old Irish saying. In the pagan theology of the Celtic people, preserved (as an object lesson as well as a charming memory) among the Irish, there are many parallel worlds, all equally "real" in their own sphere. What most of us call the Real world is the world of actual events. Besides that world, there is the World of Words. It is the world of myth and story of course, but it is also the world of mathematics and of symbols. So this is what is said about it: Logic is truth in the World of Words.
Ms Professor has chosen to live in the world of words, where words are a kind of reality in themselves, wholly apart from what they actually mean.

Posted by: Joel Clarke Gibbons | Nov 20, 2010 7:11:28 AM

It's all too common for Grant Gallicho to use the "debating tactic" of publishing attacks on Church teaching, and then attacking the person who criticizes his attack by simply denying the content of the attack and sneering at the critic. In this case, Fullam asserts sevral substantive statements that are incompatible with Church teaching, and Grant contends that just because she uses the word "pastoral" that she isn't disagreeing with the Church at all. Fullam says that between the unitive and procreative natures of marriage "only the first is really necessary." That's a substantive rejection of doctrine. She says same sex "marriage" "should be supported and encouraged, at least civilly" by the Church. "Supporting" such relationships in themselves as marriage, civil or otherwise, is a rejection of doctrine. She says the Church should accept at least some forms of cohabitation/fornication in its "moral" outlook. As Fr. Araujo points out, calling that "pastoral" doesn't make it NOT a change in the substantive view on the moral activity. And of course on same-sex marriage, Grant's blog says "church leadership offers gross and untrue insults." Nothing nuanced about that "debating point." If Grant wants to reject Church teaching on marriage by the things he publishes on his blog, he should have the integrity to stand by his position and not snidely accuse people of distortion when they point out his dissenting content.

Posted by: Matt Bowman | Nov 20, 2010 8:34:30 AM

Contrary to David, I don't think anti-Catholicism is necessarily bigoted (though it often is, as Rob's post illustrates); it can be meant-in-good-faith-but- mistaken. In any event, it is real and (unfortunately) pervasive. And, so that we keep our eye on the ball, I think it should be distinguished from critiques (including misguided ones) of and reflective dissent from the Church's (and, indeed, Christ's) teachings.

Posted by: Rick Garnett | Nov 20, 2010 8:40:13 AM

I think this is needlessly complicated. Matters could be cleared up very quickly by Prof. Fullman telling us whether she accepts or rejects Church teaching, right? Normally I would say such badgering approaches poor manners, but she's responsible for forming future ministers of Church. Which means the question is a fair one. Or am I wrong?

Posted by: Ron | Nov 20, 2010 11:05:25 AM

"Matters could be cleared up very quickly by Prof. Fullman telling us whether she accepts or rejects Church teaching, right? Normally I would say such badgering approaches poor manners, but she's responsible for forming future ministers of Church. Which means the question is a fair one. Or am I wrong?"

Oh yes, bring on the thought police and subject her to a mini-inquisition or have her take a loyalty oath.

PS: Can anyone cite anything in the article that contradicts Church doctrine?

Posted by: antonio manetti | Nov 20, 2010 2:42:25 PM

David Nickol:

"She accuses Church leadership with gross and untrue insults when they make claims such as the following:

The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. Such recognition affects all people, married and non-married; not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom."
*********

David, many advocates of SSM legalization are themselves of the view that the extension of the right to marry to same-sex couples will radically transform the institution. For them, the new regime would not be "business as usual + same-sex marriage" but something much more open-ended, paving the way for legal recognition of all sorts of different conjugal arrangements (see the "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" statement at www.beyondmarriage.org for an example). If this is what major proponents of legalization are anticipating, then the bishops are not exaggerating when they claim that legalizing SSM will have far-reaching consequences in the culture.

Regarding the claim that such legalalization would be inimical to the common good, this is predicated on an understanding of marriage as a life-long, sexually complementary union oriented towards child rearing (that is at the same time a good in and of itself, even if the couple have no children). SSM weakens the link between conjual union and child rearing and undermines the unique function of marriage as a needed bridge accross the gender gap. These claims are regularly argued for in this forum, MOJ, particular by those of the new natural law theory bent (but, just in case you've never reviewed them, then have a look at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1677717#%23). It is really the same kind of argument the bishops would mount (those that care, anyway) if their pastoral letter were to include a philosophical defence.

Posted by: Clement Ng | Nov 20, 2010 3:33:52 PM

Clement,

It seems to me you are not taking the Bishops' statement at face value, but rather trying to turn it into a slippery-slope argument. Everywhere that I know of where there has been a push for same-sex marriage, it has been for "business as usual + same-sex marriage." If the campaign for sam-sex marriage succeeds, and it is followed by a campaign for something along the lines that "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" advocates, then that can be resisted. However, I don't see a necessity to reject same-sex marriage because it is not the last conceivable change that could be campaigned for.

I don't see how the Catholic Church's idea of "marriage as a life-long, sexually complementary union oriented towards child rearing" can be altered by a recognition of civil same-sex marriage. (And let us not forget that it is not merely same-sex marriage the Church opposes. It is civil unions, and in fact any legislation whatsoever that recognizes homosexual persons as having rights.) Take a look at the current divorce rate, the divorce-and-remarriage rate, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Have these "changed the definition of marriage"?

Also, note this from a 2007 article in the Washington Post: "Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households -- a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

Based on 2% of married couples eventually being same-sex couples (purely a guess on my part), I would say acceptance of same-sex marriage would be really rather a minor change in the institution of marriage compared to what has happened in the past 50 years.

With nearly 40% of all births in the United States being out of wedlock (and 69% among blacks), what is it about same-sex marriage that scares you more?

Posted by: David Nickol | Nov 20, 2010 5:04:50 PM

Clement:

The "Beyond Marriage" statement you cite, if anything, proves the exact opposite of what you cite it for. Those who wrote and signed it did so precisely because they did not think that merely advocating for same-sex marriage would be sufficient to bring about the changes they desire. That's why the document repeatedly expresses doubts with respect to the narrowness of the same-sex marriage movement: right there in the first paragraph, it proclaims its "hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today."

One might add that there is precious little in the "Beyond Marriage" document that is particularly radical or scary. In the paper you link to, Girgis, George, and Anderson point out (rightly) that if we want to provide some of the legal rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, it makes more sense to do so through a statutory scheme that includes many kinds of relationships--"e.g., romantic partners, widowed sisters, or cohabitating celibate monks"--than through one solely open to same-sex couples (p. 36). Such a statutory scheme, if it came to be, would go a substantial part of the way toward meeting the document's call for recognition of alternative relationship forms--and there it is, being tolerated if not exactly advocated, in a paper by three socially-conservative theorists who are arguing very strongly against same-sex marriage. It is hard to see why this logic could not be extended to go even further; there seems little hostility from most corners to the basic principle that people in intimate relationships of any kind should be entitled to certain rights with respect to one another.

Posted by: WJH | Nov 20, 2010 5:56:52 PM

WJH writes, "It is hard to see why this logic could not be extended to go even further; there seems little hostility from most corners to the basic principle that people in intimate relationships of any kind should be entitled to certain rights with respect to one another."

You missed the whole point of George's arument, which is that such recognition would not be just for "intimate relationships" but for any number of relationships. This is paramount, since it would not involve any legal validation of homosexual relations per se.

Posted by: Ron | Nov 20, 2010 8:12:09 PM

Ron: by "intimate relationships of any kind" I did not mean merely same-sex relationships or merely sexual relationships, but rather the whole swath of close, interdependent relationships between individuals that might be included within a domestic partnership scheme.

Posted by: WJH | Nov 20, 2010 8:44:33 PM

David Nickol:

"Take a look at the current divorce rate, the divorce-and-remarriage rate, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Have these "changed the definition of marriage"?

Are we talking about the current state of marriage and family life, or the definition of marriage (at law)?. These trends have certainly transformed the culture surrounding marriage, by giving rise to the notion that conjugality and child-rearing can be de-coupled without significant social cost.

"With nearly 40% of all births in the United States being out of wedlock (and 69% among blacks), what is it about same-sex marriage that scares you more?"

This is non-starter. The decades long rise of out-of-wedlock births poses a threat to the well-being of children, you and I both agree. Traditionalists further maintain that the legalization of SSM will reinforce the perception that children do not need to be raised, ideally, by their married biological parents, but can thrive in any domestic arrangements headed by at least one guardian (just as the legal recognition of cohabition lends creedence to the notion that relational permanence is not all that pertinent to the welfare of children). Thus most lesbian couples who raise children conceived through IVF no doubt believe that biological parents do not need to be joined to each other in child rearing, that paternal and maternal roles are more or less interchangeable and even dispensable, that the children will not be harmed much by the absence of their father in their lives.

Of course, this is an emprical matter. Opponents of legalization may well turn out to be wrong. The point is that the same concern for the good of children, who are on average at a disadvantage by being born out of wedlock, is what motivates tradionalists.

For the record, I live in Canada, where SSM is legally recognized in all jurisdictions. I opposed its legalization in public forums, knowing full well that it would happen all the same.

Posted by: Clement Ng | Nov 21, 2010 3:00:20 AM

WJH wrote:

"Those who wrote and signed it did so precisely because they did not think that merely advocating for same-sex marriage would be sufficient to bring about the changes they desire."

Yes, but would they have been so bold if they did not expect SSM to be legalized at some point somewhere?

"Such a statutory scheme, if it came to be, would go a substantial part of the way toward meeting the document's call for recognition of alternative relationship forms--and there it is, being tolerated if not exactly advocated, in a paper by three socially-conservative theorists who are arguing very strongly against same-sex marriage."

George, Girgis and Anderson can hardly be viewed as *advocating* such a scheme when they claim that they "have no objection to this policy in principle" (pg. 36). They leave open questions about the nature of such a regime (pg. 37), cautioning that it could nonetheless dilute the special social status of traditional marriage. The proponents of Beyond Marriage, by contrast, do not regard marriage as a special relationship in any way at all ("Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others").

Given, as you say, the wide swath of partnership, family and household types the statement calls for the legal enhancmenet of, one would not be far off the mark in supposing that four roomates sharing an apartment and depending on each other would qualify for benefits (this fits the description of "Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers"). This *is* radical.

Posted by: Clement Ng | Nov 21, 2010 3:44:52 AM

Clement:

As a policy matter, we can surely recognize a variety of alternative relationship forms without legalizing same-sex marriage: indeed, it has been reasonably argued that barring same-sex couples from marriage actually encourages such a proliferation of alternatives, and legalizing same-sex marriage would, as such, help maintain the socially-privileged status of marriage. (This is especially true when legalizing same-sex marriage leads to governments getting rid of marriage alternatives like civil unions, and businesses ceasing to recognize any unmarried couples in, say, the health benefits they provide.) This is one reason the advocates of expanding legal recognition beyond marriage have such an ambivalent relationship to the same-sex marriage movement.

In other words, the "Beyond Marriage" document qualifies as a response to the same-sex marriage movement NOT because same-sex marriage leads to a broader revision of relationship recognition law (there is no reason to believe that it does), but rather because the liberal academics behind it are troubled by that movement's implicit acceptance of the legal exclusivity of marriage. And it is hard not to see their point. To take one example, if we had nationwide same-sex marriage, we probably would not have had the new hospital visitation rules, which protect a great many relationships beyond merely those of loving same-sex couples. And while same-sex marriage advocates are hardly opposed to this policy change, for the most part their past advocacy focused on solving the problem through legalizing same-sex marriage, rather than taking the Obama Administration's route of broadening hospital visitation rights beyond marriage.

I agree that George, Girgis, and Anderson are not advocating the domestic partnership proposal I referred to, but they are not opposing it either, and they seem to appreciate its basic logic even though they have reservations. That was my point: not that they will agree in the end with someone like Nancy Polikoff about how family law ought to look (with the single exception of same-sex marriage), but rather that it is hard to call "radical" proposals to grant, say, non-conjugal relationships legal rights, given that people like George, Girgis, and Anderson recognize perfectly well that the logic behind granting certain rights doesn't have anything particularly to do with sex. (I'm not sure why you think your example of legal rights for cohabitating interdependent friends is particularly radical. What about leave rights if one of the friends gets sick and needs to be taken care of? What about health coverage for cases where one friend depends on the income of the others--perhaps because he or she is primarily responsible for the housework? To be sure, there are implementation difficulties to work out--e.g., covering one spouse in an insurance plan is one thing, covering three friends quite another--but nobody is saying that the rights for such a relationship should perfectly mimic those of marriage.)

You raise a good point about the Beyond Marriage document's opposition to the privileging of marriage, a policy stance George, Girgis, and Anderson undoubtedly do not share. The Beyond Marriage authors and signatories would probably see "diluting the special social status of real marriages" as a good thing. But this policy preference of theirs has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage movement, a movement that, rhetorically, only repeatedly reaffirms the privileging of marriage by stressing how harmful it is to deny this great, important institution to loving, committed same-sex couples.

The arguably-more-plausible slippery-slope argument has been that the concept of marriage behind advocacy for same-sex marriage (which, it is claimed, treats adult affection as the sine qua non of marriage) provides no principled ground for opposing MARRIAGE specifically for other kinds of alternative relationships, like polyamorous ones or non-sexual ones. This is, as you know, a major line of argument advanced in the George, Girgis, and Anderson paper. But here the Beyond Marriage document provides no support. As far as marriage goes, it advocates (in passing) for same-sex marriage but nothing more. Its sole reference to polyamory is oblique, unaccompanied by any specific proposal for legal recognition. Certainly it does not suggest marriage as the right way for, say, cohabitating friends or siblings to formalize their relationship. In other words, while the Beyond Marriage document rejects the privileging of marriage, it does not reject marriage's status as a SPECIFIC kind of relationship that is more than a mere bond of affection between adults.

Posted by: WJH | Nov 21, 2010 9:33:27 AM

I don think Prof. Fullam is more guilty of conflating Chrurch teaching with pastoral care than Fr. Araujo.

Those whom make the case that the Church is pastorally insensitive to those with same sex attraction usually do so by citing Church documents rather than incidences of shoddy pastoral care.

Now, it may be the case that the language of the documents, makes it difficult or impossible for the Church's ministers to provide good pastoral care while remaining true to the teaching, or that it tempts here ministers into responses that are pastorally insensitive. But this needs to demonstrated rather than asserted.

But the existence of language that is harsh to some readers in Church documents is not, in and of itself, a case that the Church has been deficient in its pastoral response to SSA individuals.

Posted by: JohnMcG | Nov 21, 2010 11:14:47 AM

Correction to above. The first sentence should read:

"I think Prof. Fullam is more guilty of conflating Chrurch teaching with pastoral care than Fr. Araujo."

I apologize for not checking.

Posted by: JohnMcG | Nov 21, 2010 11:15:36 AM

All, I'm shutting this thread down. I think we can move on. I would assume that all of us -- those who embrace the Church's sexual-morality teachings and their connection with Christian moral anthropology, and whose who don't -- agree that the Church's moral and social-justice teachings generally should be presented in a way that is appropriately pastoral (in pastoral contexts) and also, when necessarily, charitably and evangelically clear and bold.

Posted by: Rick Garnett | Nov 21, 2010 4:44:50 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.