The staid, conservative Roman Catholic Church of the nineteenth century is no more. It has been rocked by one confrontation after another. Recently it has experienced a shaking of the foundations on which its moral teaching rests, and the cause is a book on sex.
Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, a product of the Catholic Theological Society of America, was written by a five-member committee after two years of study and meditation. Its major theses challenge the accepted teachings of the church for centuries, and it is quite likely to keep the Vatican lights burning late at night as the moral theologians of the Curia wrestle with its implications.
Several preliminary observations are in order. First: the Catholic Church has never really been monolithic. There has never been total unanimity on all questions. The infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception of Mary, and Mary’s assumption into heaven are examples of church teachings that have never set well with some of the faithful.
Second: expressed opinions radically different from those of the hierarchy have often been minority views that were repudiated by the vast majority. This caution is important, for the book in question could be only a flash in the pan. However, in view of the source, it may be more than that. Moreover, the people who hold these views are likely to infiltrate academia and convince their colleagues and students over a period of time.
Third: Human Sexuality is a derivative of the contemporary scene. Christians everywhere have been forced to give attention to sexual matters because of revolutionary changes in the mores of American and European society. There is a battle going on, and it is steadily intensifying. It directly involves forms of sexual behavior that have always existed beneath the surface, though on a far smaller scale than now.
Fourth: this new book may gain more credence than it deserves because it encompasses not only questions of interest to all Christians of every stripe but also less important sexual questions about which Christians have disagreed for many years—such things as birth control and masturbation. The average reader may be inclined to buy all of the package or none of it. But discernment is called for; some of the sexual items are not of the same order of importance as others.
The book does deal with important sexual questions that cannot be divorced from one’s basic presuppositions. From its earliest days the Judaeo-Christian faith has rested on the acceptance of absolutes, not only in matters of faith and belief but also in matters of life and conduct. Granted, so far as Christianity is concerned, there are some things that are culturally conditioned. Whether to do or refrain from doing these things must be decided in the specific situation. The Apostle Paul teaches this clearly when he discusses the question of meat offered to idols. He states that he can eat meat that has been offered to idols without scruple; but if it offends a brother who is of weaker faith or stricter conscience, he will surrender his liberty for the sake of the brother’s faith.
The authors of Human Sexuality apparently assume that all principles of sexual behavior are situational. That is why an early critic said of the book that “no kind of sexual behavior is flatly excluded as morally irresponsible.” The door is open to a justification of homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and cohabitation for retirees whose Social Security benefits would be lessened if they married. Undoubtedly this is why Archbishop Bernadin, head of the American Catholic hierarchy, is reported by Marjorie Hyer of the Washington Post to have “rejected the basic premises of [the] report.”
The authors of the book do not see one fact clearly: the prohibitions of Scripture were never intended to take away good things from God’s creatures. God created a moral universe governed by the principle that those who break the laws of God shall themselves be broken. Let there be no mistake about it: some matters of sexual conduct are forever forbidden in Scripture, and all the contrary sociological findings in the world will never validate them. Fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are intrinsically contrary to the divine will. The prohibitions against them are neither culturally conditioned nor situationally founded, and whether people like or dislike them is immaterial. Human beings must accept the moral universe as it is, not as they wish it were. And this universe is so ordered that no one can break its laws without suffering consequences here or hereafter.
The Proposed New Soviet Constitution
Soviet policy statements invariably debut as paradigms of pretense, and the Kremlin’s latest attempt at a constitution is a notable example. One wonders why, if Soviet leaders believe so intensely that their system is superior, they continue to shroud it in misleading rhetoric. Why not just come right out and say that their ideology subordinates individual interests to those of the group? Why equivocate about Communism’s materialistic priorities? Why all the verbiage about human rights that everyone knows the present leaders have no intention of granting? Who is kidding whom?
Many of the “provisions” and “guarantees” in the new 13,000-word charter, due to be considered by the Supreme Soviet in the fall, are copied from the 1936 “Stalinist” constitution that this one is intended to replace. The problem is that the drafters are also the interpreters. There is no objective enforcement. Feeling that there is no higher accountability, the framers wax generous. Here are key passages:
“Article 49. Every citizen shall have the right to submit proposals for improving the activity of state agencies and to criticize shortcomings in their work. Officials shall be obliged to examine such proposals and requests, to reply to them and take due action. Persecution for criticism shall be prohibited.”
“Article 50. In conformity with the interests of the working people and for the purpose of strengthening the socialist system, citizens shall be guaranteed freedom of speech, press, assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations, abilities training, education, and with due account for the need of society.”
“Article 52. Freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess any religion and perform religious rites or not to profess any religion, and to conduct atheistic propaganda, shall be recognized for all citizens. Incitement of hostility and hatred on religious grounds shall be prohibited.”
It is very easy, of course, to detect the qualifiers that punctuate the promises and thus form a dialectic. The document explicitly asserts that “the state shall control the measure of labor and consumption in accordance with the principle ‘From each according to his ability and to each according to his work.’ ” Once that is established, everything else is anti-climactic and really somewhat superfluous.
The lesson for the West is to avoid emulation by refusing to adopt as government policy that which government as such cannot ultimately produce. Vive la différence!
Mud For Clarity
Sometimes the impression gets abroad that international relations would be much improved if it were not for some cantankerous Americans. They muddy the waters by expecting all other countries to behave like their own, the story goes. But we think the accusation may be misplaced.
There are some Christians in Norway, for example, who are concerned about their country’s relations with the rest of the world. In regard to proposed aid to Mozambique, the Mission to Iron Curtain Countries organization suggested that the foreign minister of Norway first determine the state of human rights and religious freedom in that Marxist-controlled land. The mission gave him this list of questions to ask: (1) “Are the Christians [in that country] granted the religious liberty which is guaranteed in [their] constitution? (2) Can Bibles be imported and sold freely? (3) Are those who want to baptize their children allowed to do so? (4) Can missionary work be carried out without restriction? (5) Are there still Christians in prisons and camps for re-education and forced labor?”
Perhaps the (U.S.) Methodist Board of Global Ministries should ask these questions about China. A recent resolution of the board asked for diplomatic ties with that country. Or the National Council of Churches could ask the questions about Cuba. The NCC board recently asked for diplomatic relations with Castro and an end to the blockade.
The questions would muddy the waters, but those accused of asking could say they are Norwegian questions and not of American origin.
Unrestrained Stewardship
The Apostle Paul, missionary extraordinary, took a trip to Rome, but it was a trip arranged and paid for by the Roman government. As a prisoner he was not free to choose his destination or his means of reaching it. While the record shows that he paid some of his expenses in Rome, he certainly could not compel the authorities to let him roam the countryside freely as an evangelist.
Despite the restrictions, Paul used his time in Rome profitably. The last paragraphs of Acts (28:17–31) describe his stewardship of this prison period. Since he could not leave the place of his confinement, he quickly invited an audience to come to him (v. 17). Taking advantage of the unusual situation, he skillfully led them to ask him more about his Christian faith (v. 22). When they came back for more, he spoke so interestingly that they stayed all day (v. 23). Some who heard him were “convinced” of the truth of the Gospel (v. 24).
Paul carried on this significant ministry for two years. Through the ages many Christians have been encouraged by his example to preach while in jail or in other difficult circumstances. Too few, then and now, have followed his larger example of using fully whatever opportunities God has given them.