Novus Ordo: Belgium bishop co-authors book in support of pre-marital sex, same-sex relations
Please pray for these heretics to leave behind Vatican II.
The opening sentences of Vatican II’s Lumen gentium state that
Christ is the light of all nations, not the Church, but that this light
shines on the Church’s face, especially in its proclamation of the
Gospel. The human reception of that light—and hence of the Gospel—is,
however, open to resistance and hence to distortion, misinterpretation,
and rejection (see John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantum, §§55-56, 47). Thus, the offer of salvation, or being called
to salvation by God’s grace, is one thing, and the actuality of
reception is another. Consider John 1: 5, 10. “And the light shines in
the darkness and the darkness has not understood it.” “He was in the
world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know
Him.” Both of these verses speak of the negative reaction of the world
to the coming of the light. As Karol Wojtyla, the future John Paul II
rightly said, “Jesus is both the light that shines for mankind and at
the same time a sign of contradiction . . . , that sign which, more than
ever, men are resolved to oppose” (Sign of Contradiction, 198).
The fall into sin and its effects
Still, the darkness of the unspiritual mind (Col 2:18), of error and
sin, of distortion, misinterpretation, and rejection, does not
extinguish the Light. The Light of Christ still shines upon the face of
his Church, as John Paul II says, “while [the Church] attentive to the
new challenges of history and to mankind’s efforts to discover the
meaning of life, offers to everyone the answer which comes from the
truth about Christ and his Gospel” (Veritatis Splendor §2).
Furthermore, we can also appreciate that the light of God the Creator
has not been extinguished since, even though the fall into sin (Gen 3)
and its universal effects has savagely ruined the whole creation, man
still reflects God’s image, the structures of creation, such as marriage
and family, indeed, the whole temporal order, still affirm creation’s
goodness, and dimensions of any culture, such as art, literature, music,
law, moral standards, and so forth, still reflect God’s goodness in
view of his common grace.
Threefold strategy
So, the Church does not claim that the whole culture of any society,
including our own, is irretrievably evil and hence irreclaimable, beyond
redemption. But neither does she accept all the dimensions of this
culture as wholly good, or wholly tolerable. In its response to the
surrounding dimensions of a culture, the Church, at its best, has
adopted a threefold strategy of (1) total rejection (e.g., incest,
bestiality, homosexual practice, adultery, child sacrifice,
prostitution, and rape), (2) qualified tolerance (e.g., practices in the
Old Testament, such as, polygamy, divorce that were tolerated, Jesus
tells us, because of “hardness of hearts,” but it was not so from the
order of creation [Matt 19:8; Mk 10:5]), and (3) critical affirmation,
which means affirming positively, albeit discerningly, aspects of the
true, good and beautiful in, say, the ancients and moderns (e.g.,
philosophical ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Scheler).
Simplistic strategy
This threefold strategy, which we find evidence of in the Sacred
Scripture, is an answer to the question as to how the Church should
engage the surrounding culture. This question is fundamental to
understanding the recent book, Mag ik? Sorry, Dank je, Vrijmoedige dialoog over relaties, huwelijk en gezin [May I? Sorry, Thank you, Open Dialogue about relationships, marriage and family
(Lannoo, 2016)], by Bishop Johan Bonny (Antwerp, Belgium), moral
theologian Roger Burggraeve, and Ilse Van Halst. Rather than this
complex threefold strategy, the authors of this book employ a simplistic
strategy of wholly accepting the culturally dominant sexual morality of
our time, in particular its affirmation of pre-marital sex and hence
cohabitation (33-36, 41-46, 48-50, 63, 70), contraceptive sex (108-110),
and same-sex relations (62, 137, 143-145, 148149, 151, 153, 155-157,
161, 169, 174). They accept this morality because not only is it the way
things are socially, but also the Church’s teaching no longer reflects
what Christians experience as sin (41-42, 84). They also attempt to
provide a moral as well as theological justification of these practices,
going so far as to make a plea for ecclesial rites of blessing for
cohabiting and same-sex couples (52, 54-55, 163-164).
Rejection of Church teaching
They readily acknowledge that their view doesn’t represent the whole
Church (243). This is an understatement, and it is also inaccurate. They
consciously rejects confessional Catholicism, the normative and
authoritative exposition of the Catholic faith, particularly of the
moral life in Christ regarding human sexuality (145, 162, 215), as found
in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§§2331-2400), which
John Paul II called a “‘sure norm for teaching the faith’, as well as a
‘sure and authentic reference text’” (xv).
Furthermore, these authors completely ignore the foundational moral teaching of John Paul II’s Veritatis splendor
and his profound biblical and theological reflections in his Theology
of the Body. I am not surprised about their ignoring the latter given
their claim (see below) regarding the moral and ontological insignificance of
sexual differentiation, and hence of bodied persons, for giving a
positive account of conjugal marriage, of the two-in-one-flesh union of a
man and woman (Genesis 2:24). This is ironic given the recent Dutch
translation by Betsaida publishers of John Paul’s Theologie van het lichaam.
The use and abuse of semina Verbi
How do they theologically justify, for example, cohabitation and
same-sex relations? They employ the concept of the “semina Verbi,” or
“seeds of the Word” in order to find goodness or positive elements in
these relationships (17, 43, 49, 50, 61, 147, 168, 214), suggesting that
these relationships qua relationships are imperfect forms and
incomplete realizations of conjugal marriage, of an exclusive and
permanent relationship. They say, “love is love” (148, 169). But this is
a misinterpretation and hence misapplication of this concept, which is
typically applied in the context of appreciating the elements of
goodness and truth found in other cultures and religions as a
preparation for the reception of the gospel (praeparatio evangelica). But Vatican II does not move from recognizing those elements to concluding that those religions qua religions are themselves vehicles of salvation, even if imperfectly, bringing us into a saving relationship with God.
Fragments of truth
No wonder Vatican II’s Ad Gentes §9 takes the Church’s
missionary activity to involve a “purg[ing] of evil associations [of]
every element of truth and grace which is found among peoples.” No
wonder that Lumen Gentium, §16-17 speak of “deceptions by the
Evil One” at work in a man’s resistance to God’s prevenient grace as
well as that the gospel “snatches them [non-Christians] from the slavery
of error and of idols” and the “confusion of the devil.” Indeed, Ad Gentes, §9
speaks of the fragments of truth and grace to be found among the
nations that the gospel “frees from all taint of evil and restores [the
truth] to Christ its maker, who overthrows the devil’s domain and wards
off the manifold malice of vice.” In short, the Church’s missionary
practice is a transformative one of bringing “every thought captive” to
Christ (2 Cor 10:5) by treating whatever truth or goodness is found in
those cultures and religions as stepping stones that are brought into
the service of the gospel and its reception.
God’s common grace
Similarly, consider the use of this concept with respect to
cohabitation. Let us suppose that a cohabiting couple with children
possesses certain stability for the raising of children (45-46). This is
good, and let us say that it is even a sign of God’s common grace. But
that doesn’t mean that a cohabiting relationship qua
relationship is itself good, and that it is an imperfect form and
incomplete realization of marriage (48). No more than the presence of
truth and goodness in non-Christian religions by virtue of God’s common
grace turns those religions into imperfect vehicles of salvation.
What is distinctive about cohabitation is that the couples are having
sexual intercourse—fornication is morally wrong according to the
definitive teaching of the Church—without having made a lifetime
commitment to each other (and as the divorce rates show is a bad
preparation for marriage). This relationship is incompatible with
marriage, but is also not a suitable preparation or precursor to
marriage. Simply stated, it is a sinful relationship, alienating the
couple from God (1 Cor 6:9-10, 15-19), and hence it is not an incomplete
or imperfect relationship that is as such ordered to the good of
marriage but rather is a violation of marriage.
Cheap grace
The authors pay very little systematic attention to sin and its
manifestations, and that is intentional (42, 84, 144). It is not
integral to their view of human beings and to understanding why people
resist and hence distort, misinterpret, and finally reject the Church’s
teaching on sexual morality. In particular, this means that they
misunderstand the logic of mercy. Mercy is the face of God’s love turned
toward sinners, searching them out, and offering them pardon and
salvation through Christ’s atoning work. They speak throughout the book
about a pastoral strategy of mercy but they never connect it to
repentance, the forgiveness of sins, the atoning work of Christ, and the
sacrament of confession (1 John 1:9). Muting or suppressing sin,
judgment, wrath, and the cross—has given rise to a theology of divine acceptance—evident throughout this book—rather than a theology of divine redemption,
and hence to a sentimental view of God and his love that result in
cheap grace. Their view of mercy is pure theological liberalism: “A God
without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment
through the ministration of a Christ without a cross" (H. Richard
Niebuhr).
Same-sex relations
How do they morally justify same-sex relations? There are several points here that must be made.
First, the authors are cultural relativists regarding homosexuality. The moral evaluation of same-sex sexual acts varies from culture to culture. Second, their relativism does not mean that “anything goes” regarding same-sex (or cohabiting) relations (25, 39, 76). They apply moral norms that generally apply to any (hetero- or homosexual) enduring interpersonal relationships (102), namely, norms, or boundary rules, as they call them (101), that prohibit lying, deception, coercion, exploitation, and so forth. They call this a relational ethic (13, 102, 158-159, 161, 163, 174, 218). Third, there is no distinctive sexual ethics, on their view, since it is the moral quality of the relationship, its enduring love, personal commitment and attitudes, affections, which expresses the normative essence of a relationship, rather than the natural goods of human sexuality, the unitive and procreative ends, of the body-soul person’s creational teleological ordering to the sexual “other”.
In short, these authors sever human actions from normative teleology and indeed from the soul/body unity of the human person. Human sexuality is, according to the authors, not designed with embedded principles and inbuilt meanings and ends. Therefore, they hold that sexual differentiation and hence the bodily nature of the human person is morally insignificant. Thus, the individual’s sexually differentiated body does not play a morally foundational role in evaluating sexual acts. In short, opposite sex and same-sex relations are not less just because they are different; each may experience exclusive and enduring love in their own legitimate way (153-155), according to the authors. But this denies the sexually different reality of the man and of the woman, in short, sexual differentiation and the dual unity of the human couple that is constitutive of the original character of the image of God and is foundational to the form of love that is marriage (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24).
First, the authors are cultural relativists regarding homosexuality. The moral evaluation of same-sex sexual acts varies from culture to culture. Second, their relativism does not mean that “anything goes” regarding same-sex (or cohabiting) relations (25, 39, 76). They apply moral norms that generally apply to any (hetero- or homosexual) enduring interpersonal relationships (102), namely, norms, or boundary rules, as they call them (101), that prohibit lying, deception, coercion, exploitation, and so forth. They call this a relational ethic (13, 102, 158-159, 161, 163, 174, 218). Third, there is no distinctive sexual ethics, on their view, since it is the moral quality of the relationship, its enduring love, personal commitment and attitudes, affections, which expresses the normative essence of a relationship, rather than the natural goods of human sexuality, the unitive and procreative ends, of the body-soul person’s creational teleological ordering to the sexual “other”.
In short, these authors sever human actions from normative teleology and indeed from the soul/body unity of the human person. Human sexuality is, according to the authors, not designed with embedded principles and inbuilt meanings and ends. Therefore, they hold that sexual differentiation and hence the bodily nature of the human person is morally insignificant. Thus, the individual’s sexually differentiated body does not play a morally foundational role in evaluating sexual acts. In short, opposite sex and same-sex relations are not less just because they are different; each may experience exclusive and enduring love in their own legitimate way (153-155), according to the authors. But this denies the sexually different reality of the man and of the woman, in short, sexual differentiation and the dual unity of the human couple that is constitutive of the original character of the image of God and is foundational to the form of love that is marriage (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24).
Sexual difference?
By assuming the insignificance of sexual difference for making a sexual
act morally right, does this view fail to grasp the unified totality
that is the body-person and hence the human meaning of the body? Does
the view do justice to the embodiment of human persons as man and woman
and hence to sexual differences between them? Does it properly express
the intrinsic place of the body in interpersonal unity or does the body
remain extrinsic to personhood? If the later, does that view
satisfactorily deal with the human meaning as well as moral status of
the human body, let alone the latter’s sacramental significance?
Consider conjugal marriage, as a love-communion, according to the
Church’s teaching. It is based on the truth about humanity that men and
women are complementary. Sexual complementarity is necessary not only
because of the biological fact that procreation requires a man and
woman, but also to become organically one complete organism and so
contribute to a communion of persons. Same-sex couples lack the
biological basis of organic complementarity making it impossible for
them to perform the kind of reproductive-type act which makes them the
one-flesh bodily union of marriage itself. The form of love that is
conjugal marriage is founded through a bodily sexual union of man and
woman as one flesh (Genesis 2:24).
Sexual complementarity
This real bodily oneness—which is impossible for same-sex
couples—actualizes marital unity. The authors are mistaken to hold that
the so-called “evangelical ideal” of marriage consists only of
exclusivity and permanence. They assure us that they subscribe to the
"church law" that the sacrament of marriage is about the union of a man
and a woman. But since the authors insist that what they think is the
essence of marriage (exclusivity and permanence) may in fact be realized
by a same-sex couple, this is a distinction without a real difference
for them. But in the love form that is conjugal marriage, a one-flesh
unity is not only essential to this form but is also the body’s language
for one-life unity. This bodily union is made possible by sexual
complementarity and it is not extrinsic to the mutual self-giving love
that it signifies or symbolizes. Of course it is a sign or symbol of
that mutual love but that is precisely what it is in reality because the
human body is part of the personal reality of the human being—a
one-flesh union—and not an extrinsic instrument of the self.
Bodied persons
This emphasis on the body being intrinsic to one’s own self is rooted in
the Church’s teaching on the soul/body unity of the human person. As
John Paul says, “In fact, body and soul are inseparable: in the willing agent and in the deliberate act they stand or fall together” (Veritatis Splendor
§49). Therefore, he adds, we can easily understand why separating “the
moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise is contrary to the
teaching of Scripture and Tradition” (Ibid). This teaching is explicitly
embraced by Benedict XVI (e,g., Address to the Roman Curia, December
21, 2012) and Francis, in particular in Amoris Laetitia §56 and Laudato Si’ §155.
The authors of this book acknowledge that here too they break with the
Catholic tradition by denying the soul/body unity of the human person (Catechism of the Catholic Church §§362-368).
One-way conversation
Moreover, the book is subtitled, “An Open Dialogue…” To be sure the
authors of this book are open and frank about their rejection of the
Church’s teaching, but they are not engaged in anything
resembling a “dialogue.” To have an open, critical, and meaningful
dialogue requires an exchange of views with the objective of listening
to and talking with others who differ with us in order to
promote a deeper understanding of the truth. This book is really a
one-way conversation between a bishop and a moral theologian since there
is no interlocutor that takes the opposing position of the Church’s
teaching on sexual morality, responding to the claims of the bishop and
the moral theologian.
Scandal
I have no space here to discuss their interpretation of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia.
Also, I leave out of consideration here not only their uncritical
assertions that there exists settled science regarding the homosexual
condition (159-160), but also the often repeated but highly contested
claim—and it has been refuted by reputable Protestant and Catholic
scholars—that Sacred Scripture knows nothing of contemporary
homosexuality (160).
The book also has some good insightful reflections and wise pastoral
advice for dealing with troubled marriages (218-225, 229-241), for
maintaining the vitality of marriage and family life for the common good
(119-127, 130-134), for the having and raising of children (114-119).
Still, this book is a scandal, particularly since it is co-authored by a
Belgian bishop of the Church who, according to Canon §386 “is bound to
propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to
be believed and applied to morals.” Thus: “Scandal is an attitude which
leads another to do evil. . . . Scandal is grave when given by those
who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others” (Catechism of the Catholic Church §§2284-2285).
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not identifying the moral and
theological errors these authors embrace—according to the mind of the
Church—with spiritual unfaithfulness. I shall leave that judgment to the
Lord. Nevertheless, their book is bad news because it diminishes the
light that emanates from the whole truth about Jesus Christ, his mission
and his Church to the culture.
