- Raised to the altars: one who fell for the poor
A champion of the poor or someone mixed up in politics? A man who died for the faith or because he was a political inconvenience? Archbishop Oscar Romero’s beatification today confirms his stature and illuminates his model of holiness
- Home News
- World News
- Parish Practice
- Letters Extra
- The living Spirit
- Pope Francis on giving up television, speaking without thinking and refusing to cry in public
- A broken marriage still a source of grace because Christ remains in it, says Cardinal Nichols
- Church needs a reality check, says Dublin archbishop after Irish vote in favour of gay marriage
- 106 arrested over brick kiln murder of Pakistani Christian couple
- Even the gangs declared a truce for Romero’s beatification Clare Dixon in San Salvador
- Irish vote shows the Church needs to rethink its theology of sexuality Ursula Halligan
- Greatest threat to Palmyra is Western apathy Nadim Nassar
Reading the Instrumentum Laboris this week brought memories of question 1b in the questionnaire, where the choice was an either/or answer, either full acceptance of the Church's teaching or difficulty putting it into practice. No sense in the question that perhaps certain propositions in the Church's moral teaching could sometimes not be accepted fully because of a shaky theological/philosophical basis which contravenes people's experiences and/or reasoning.
Regarding natural law, even if we accept natural law as basis for morality - no matter the difficulties with the jump from "what it is" to "what it ought to be - the problem of physicalism", or the absolutizing of the physical, needs to be addressed.
Why, in response to the sanctity of human life, the Church makes a distinction between killing and murder in the just war theory, but maintains the absolute force of the physical when it comes to the sexual act, so that the unitive and procreative aims of the act cannot be separated? Gaudium et Spes states: "man's sexuality and the faculty of reproduction wondrously surpass the endowments of lower forms of life." (51). Why, then, the biological side is absolutized? Why are so many Catholic moral philosophers who deal with the application of natural law ignored?
Dealing with human experience from the position of absolutized human truth, a kind of monolithic Christian ethics, as is the case with Instrumentum Laboris, not only denies the laity the voice in the church to which it is entitled but reduces truth to a mere commodity for maintaining the status quo.
If there is so much certainty about the Church's position in moral matters that have to do with family and relationships, why the fear of listening to the experiences of people in family and relationships without distorting what they say? As Bishop Butler put it: "Ne timeamus quod veritas veritati noceat, Let us not fear that truth can endanger truth."
Marisa Wilson, Kent