[ Up ] [ Part 1 ] [ Part 2 ] [ Part 3 ] [ Part 4 ] [ Part 5 ] [ Part 6 ] [ Part 7 ] [ Part 8 ] [ Part 9 ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Một ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Hai ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Ba ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Bốn ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Năm ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Sáu ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Bảy ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Tám ] [ Tin Mừng TDHN - Chín ] [ Foreword ] [ Introduction ]

TWO

Who Says?

Church Authority and Other Preliminary Questions

No man is so free as he who is able to renounce his own will and do the will of God.

Author unknown

People hate being told what to do and what not to do, especially when it t comes to sex. Part of this attitude bears witness to our dignity as free human beings. When we're forced to do something, we often sense that it violates our dignity.

Yet another aspect of this attitude bears witness to the reality of original sin. We don't want anyone, not even God, telling us that something we want to do is wrong. We want to determine what is good and evil for ourselves. It's the problem of pride.

Human pride rebels against authority. And when authority is abused, we should rebel. But when authority is exercised according to God's own design, if we want to be truly free, then we must obey it. It's the paradox of the gospel by dying, we live (see Jn 12:24); by giving ourselves away we find ourselves (see Mt 16:25); by obeying the truth we're set free (see Jn 8:32).

Obedience at its best doesn't stem from force or fear but from love for the good, the true, and the beautiful-love for God. Freedom is not doing whatever I want. Freedom is doing whatever is good. Freedom is doing God's will.

But how do we know God's will, especially with regard to our sexuality? It simply wouldn't make sense for God to hold us accountable to his will if we didn't have a sure way of knowing what it is. In this lies the good news of the Church's teaching: God has revealed his will to us.

With that in mind, let's consider some of the most frequent questions asked about the Church's teaching authority - questions that must be answered before we can deal with what the Church teaches specifically about human sexuality.

1 . Who determines what the Church officially teaches? Aren't we all ''the Church"?

The Church is united to Christ as a bride to her husband. It's Christ who determines what his Bride teaches. Christ gave authority to some members of the Church to be faithful witnesses of all that he has commanded; this is the role of the Church's Magisterium. This official teaching office is made up of the pope and the bishops throughout the world who are in union with him. When the pope teaches on issues of faith and morals, and when the bishops teach on faith and morals in union with him, they teach in Christ's name and with his authority.

Yes, all baptized Catholics make up the Catholic Church. We are all "one body" in Christ (see 1 Cor 12:12). This body, however, has a sacred order to it, a hierarchy ("hier-archy" literally means "sacred order"). As St. Paul said, the body of Christ has different members who play different roles (see 1 Cor 12). All these different roles are vital to the organic functioning of the body: "The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’" (1 Cor 12:21). Nor should the eye wish she were a hand, nor the foot wish he were the head.

Those in the Church who teach with the authority of Christ don't claim the task for themselves. They are ordained by God to do so. That's their role within the body. The Magisterium, then, is a tremendous gift to the Church and the world because it gives us a sure way of knowing the teachings of Christ.

2. Where did the Church get the idea of having a "Magisterium" to give official teachings?

Christ founded his Church upon St. Peter, the leader of the apostles. He gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" and told him: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (see Mt 16:13-20 for the whole discourse).

In other words, Christ gave St. Peter the authority to represent him on earth, to teach in his name and with his authority. This because Peter was an impeccable guy, but because Christ would protect him and the other apostles by sending them the Holy Spirit to guide them into "all truth" (see Jn 16:13).

What Christ promised two thousand years ago continues in our own day. The pope and the bishops are in a direct, traceable line of succession from St. Peter and the other apostles - hence we speak of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church. They too are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. So as Catholics we believe that when they teach on matters of faith and morals, they do so with the authority of Christ himself (see Catechism, n. 888).

Led by the pope, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tm 3:15). This isn't because of human merit but because the Church remains in the most intimate union with her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. Jesus said to his apostles, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16). Thus the Second Vatican Council can teach that when we receive the teachings of the pope and bishops and live according to them, we are receiving "not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God" (see 1 Thes 2:13).[1]

3. Are you saying the Church actually believes she speaks for God and knows "the truth"? That's so arrogant!

Yes, the Church actually believes she speaks for God and has been granted by Christ a share in his own infallibility (see Catechism, n. 889). That's an amazingly bold claim with which we all must seriously reckon. We can draw only one of two conclusions: Either the Church is extremely arrogant - or just maybe, she's right.

In the end, there's no middle ground. If the Church is right, then we will see her as a great blessing from God, and we will want to conform our lives to what she teaches. Even when we may not understand a certain why behind a teaching, we will trust that it will come to light in due time. On the other hand, if the Church is extremely arrogant, then we should not even want to be associated with the name Catholic.

This is a weighty reality. It confronts us and forces us to choose. We live in a culture that teaches us to avoid such ultimate choices. We prefer to invent both/and scenarios rather than face up to the inescapable either/or realities of life.

In other words, we live in a culture that rejects objective truth. "That may be true for you, but not for me," people say. Or, "Anybody's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's." We've all been affected by these attitudes.

But Jesus taught something very different. He taught that he is the truth (see Jn 14:6), and he established a Church that he promised would teach the truth (see Jn 16:13). He calls us to accept that. We are free not to accept it. But it's a terribly weighty decision that we dare not take lightly.

Approaching the matter from a purely practical perspective, it only makes sense that Christ would establish a definitive authority on earth to make his will known. Otherwise, interpreting Scripture and determining God's will on issues with eternal consequences would amount to a guessing game. A God-given authority on earth is essential to maintain unity in faith.

If Christ truly gave this authority to the Catholic Church, it's not arrogant for her to exercise it. If we're honest, what's arrogant is for us to think we know better than the Church what God's will is in matters of faith and morals.

4. How can the Church claim to teach without error? History shows that the Church has made lots of mistakes and done some horrible things. What about Galileo, the Crusades, and the Inquisition?

On the first Sunday of Lent, 2000, John Paul II publicly sought God's mercy and forgiveness for the past sins committed by members of the Church. As this gesture so clearly indicates, the Church doesn't claim that all her members and leaders throughout history have never spoken in error or never made mistakes. (As a member of the Church, have you ever made a mistake or spoken in error? Blows that theory ... ) The charism that protects the Church from error applies to her official teachings on matters of faith and morals.

Certainly members of the Church, including some priests, bishops, and popes, have not always lived according to the teachings of their own faith. They have made mistakes. At times, terrible things have been done in the name of "the Church."

This is scandalous and can weaken people's faith in the Church. Yet the fact that the Church has endured so much corruption and is still standing after two thousand years also bears testimony to Christ's words when he founded the Church upon Peter: "The powers of death shall not prevail against [the Church]" (Mt 16:18).

Why has there been corruption in the Church? First of all because the Church is made up of people such as you and me. As the saying goes, the Church is not a "hotel for saints," it's a "hospital for sinners." Yes, we're all called to be saints, but we don't reach perfection in this life. Meanwhile, as Christ said, both wheat and weeds will be growing in the Church until the harvest (see Mt 13:24-30).

But the good news is this: even when individual members of the Church have been unfaithful, even when in certain time of history the weeds have seemed more plentiful than the wheat, Christ has never abandoned his Bride. While members of the Church have made mistakes, the Church has never erred in those teachings on faith and morals that she has proclaimed in a definitive manner, and she never will. This is God's own promise.

5. Doesn't the "infallibility" of the Church only apply in rare pronouncements of the pope?

The Church exercises the charism of infallibility (the inability to err) in two ways. The extraordinary way is exercised when the pope makes an ex cathedra ("from the chair" of St. Peter) pronouncement.[2] The ordinary way is exercised when the Magisterium agrees on a matter of faith or morals as definitively to be held.[3]

It's a common error to think infallibility only applies to ex cathedra pronouncements, as if these are the only teachings Catholics "have" to believe. That would mean we wouldn't "have" to believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation or a host of other core beliefs that have never been defined by ex cathedra pronouncements. As the Catechism makes clear, The infallibility of the Magisterium ... extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed."[4]

Furthermore, even in those cases when the Magisterium teaches without exorcising the charism of infallibility, we are called to adhere to those teachings "with religious assent" (see Catechism, n. 892).

6. The Church should get rid of its hierarchical structure and be more democratic and open to dialogue.

In recent times, the term "hierarchy" has become a bad word. Many seem to think it's somehow synonymous with inequality. But as we noted before, hierarchy simply means sacred order.

To reject hierarchy, then, is not to reject inequality. To reject hierarchy is to reject God's ordering of the universe. Not a good idea! The opposite of hierarchy is not equality but anarchy - no order at all, chaos.[5]

Our world today is filled with chaos, and it all stems from rejecting God-given authority. To a large extent, what has been specifically rejected is God's plan for sex and marriage. It's difficult to find even one social evil, one element of societal chaos, that is not in some way related to the breakdown of marriage and the misuse of sex.

The Church is not a democracy. The truth about Christ and what he teaches cannot be determined by popular vote. If God reveals something to be true, it's not open for "dialogue" about whether or not it's really true.

On the other hand, if by dialogue we mean an open discussion about a given teaching with the goal of understanding why the Church teaches what she teaches, that's legitimate. But if by dialogue we mean that the Church needs to listen to other opinions with the goal of being willing to change her teaching on faith and morals, that's not legitimate. The Church simply cannot change what the Holy Spirit has revealed to be true. It's not a matter of stubborn unwillingness; it's a matter of impossibility.

For example, it makes no sense to "dialogue" about whether or not 2 + 2 = 4. We can "dialogue" about why 2 + 2 = 4 with the goal of explaining it for those who don't understand, but we can't hope to change the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

God does not change for us. We must change for him. How our pride rebels. But until we come to grips with this fundamental reality - that we are not God - then we're living an illusion.

7. As a Catholic, am I not allowed to question the Church's teachings? Perhaps the Church is wrong about somethings. Do I have to believe everything the Church teaches?

There's nothing wrong when a person growing in his faith poses questions in an earnest quest for truth. That's how we discover what the truth is. No one, then, should be afraid of entertaining "perhaps." Perhaps God doesn't exist. But perhaps he does. Perhaps the Catholic Church is woefully misguided in her teachings. But perhaps her teachings come from God himself. These kind of questions must be entertained.

Those who are afraid to put their beliefs to the test in this way are clinging to an ideology that they fear will not stand up to reality. On the other hand, those who seek the truth have no fear of surrendering their beliefs to reality. Entertaining "perhaps" is the only path to the truth. It's the only path to the surety and freedom of faith.

Faith, however, is a gift that doesn't necessarily come all at once. The Church herself recognizes that "an educational growth process is necessary in order that individual believers ... may patiently be led forward arriving at a richer understanding and fuller integration of [Christ's] mystery in their lives."[6]

Still, if the Church is who she claims to be, then the gift of faith will ultimately lead the seeker of truth to embrace all that she teaches. If in the end a person still protests what the Church teaches, then that person doesn't really believe in the Catholic Church. At that point it would seem hypocritical to remain Catholic.

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Mt 7:7). Pose every question you've ever had about the Church, entertain every "perhaps" you can think of, but don't be satisfied until you find the answers.[7]

8. Isn't morality ultimately a matter of my own conscience?

The Church has always taught that Catholics, like all people, are obligated to follow their own consciences - on issues of sexual morality and every other matter. But there is an even more fundamental obligation to form the conscience according to the truth. Conscience is not free to invent right and wrong. Conscience is called to discover the truth of what is right and wrong and to submit its judgments to the truth once the truth is found.

While all of us have the basic moral law written in our hearts by God, original sin tends to cloud our judgment. Sometimes our own fallen desires can take us completely off track. This is why the conscientious person sees the Church's moral teachings as a tremendous gift. They're a sure norm for forming one's conscience according to the truth.

Too often we use "conscience" to give a morally acceptable veneer to what we wanted to do all along without discerning our behavior in light of objective standards. Think about it: if personal conscience is the autonomous determinant of good and evil, morality becomes whatever I want it to be. Who are we, then, to tell a rapist or a mass murderer that what he does is evil if his conscience says it's OK? There must be objective standards that we're all responsible to follow. Those objective standards are given to us by God and are revealed through the teachings of his Church.

Yet, what is frequently our response when we don't like what his Church teaches? We hide behind our claims of "conscience" and imagine a God who accepts what we want. But that's a god who is other than God. That's an idol.

We'll never find peace and true happiness until we embrace God's will for our lives. That's what conversion of heart is all about - and we're all in need of it.

9. The Church should stop judging people and imposing her teaching on everybody. We should all be free to make our own choices.

We are all free to make our own choices. The Church never imposes her teaching. There's no such thing as a papal police squad. But the Church does boldly and fearlessly propose her teaching to the world as the trurh of what it means to love. We're free to embrace the Church's proposal or reject it. Love can't be forced on anybody.

While it's true that God alone can judge the human heart, we can and must make moral judgments about certain behaviors. The Church would betray God and all humanity if she didn't uphold God's will as the objective standard for all. To condemn a person's behavior, however, is not to condemn the person, but to call that person to embrace the truth of love.

Love isn't arbitrary. Love isn't whatever makes a person "feel good." Love means following Christ and keeping his commandments (see Jn 15:10). This is what the Church's teaching is all about.

10. Why is there such a widespread notion that the Church is down on sex?

Even the most loyal Catholic must admit that this generally held notion - even if incorrect - is not merely the fancy of illusion. Far too many impressionable young minds have been formed (or mis-formed) by the prudish, scolding tones of a well-intentioned (we pray) but misguided and sexually dis-integrated nun or priest. From where comes this general cloud of "sexual negativity" that seems so closely associated in people's minds with the Catholic Church?

To be sure it has much to do with misinterpretation of Church teaching. But we don't do a disservice to the Church by admitting that it also has much to do with the disparaging treatment of sex that has recurred all too often in the works of various historical Christian authors.

The objective person will admit that a deep ambivalence about the body and its functions, particularly its sexual, genital functions, is not a limited Christian phenomenon but a universal human phenomenon.[8] As such, Christian authors, like many others, have not been exempt from the failure to appreciate fully the goodness and beauty of sex. Still, it's important, within the context of this admission, that we not confuse the mind of the Church with the minds of people in the Church.

In the face of many attacks, the Church's official teachings have always upheld the inherent goodness of the body and of sexuality. The Church has deemed all contrary systems of thought nothing short of heretical. Unfortunately, until the twentieth century, official pronouncements on the matter have been relatively brief and juridical in nature. As such, they haven't made as lasting an impression on our culture's "historical consciousness" as some of the more extensive writings of Catholic thinkers who were heavily influenced by currents of thought alien to the mind of the Church. Thus, despite significant developments of Magisterial teaching on sex and marriage in the last century, the notion that the Church is "down on sex" still lingers.

Regarding Church teaching itself, it seems that misinterpretation of the esteem accorded the celibate vocation, as well as misinterpretation of the Church's strict moral code, have also contributed to the prevailing attitude. Traditionally, those who followed Christ's words and chose to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom" (Mt 19:12) were considered to have chosen the more holy or "higher" path. While there is a proper way of understanding this (as we'll discuss in chapter nine), it has often been misunderstood to mean that those who do marry and have sex are somehow less holy, or even "unholy."

The sentiment goes like this: if virginity is so good, sex must be so bad. If refraining from sex makes one pure and holy, having sex must make one dirty and unholy.

Yet nothing could be further from the mind of the Church in promoting the celibate vocation. The Church holds this vocation in such high regard precisely because she holds that which it offers to God - genital sexual expression - in such high regard. If sex were something unclean and unholy, offering it as a gift to God would be an act of sacrilege. But since sex is one of the most precious treasures God has given humanity, making a gift of it back to God is one of the most genuine expressions of thanksgiving (eucharistia) for such a great gift. The other is receiving it from God's hands and living it as the expression of the marital covenant.

The misinterpretation of the Church's strict moral code is similar. The sentiment goes like this: if the Church says you can't do this and you can't do that - everything that it seems people want to do - then the Church must think sex is bad, even if she grants the one reluctant exception of "doing it" for the purpose of procreation. This latter belief (that the Church teaches you can only have sex if you want a baby) is a fallacy we'll get to in chapters five and six.

For the present, we must clarify the simple fact that saying, "Handle with care" - or even "Handle with extreme care" - is in no way synonymous with saying, "This is bad." In fact, what are those things in life that we handle with the most care? The things that have the most inherent value. It's because sex is so valuable, because it's so precious in the eyes of Christ and his Church, that it must be handled with extreme care.

When we venture into the realm of sex, we are on holy ground. Only those who are properly disposed can handle the mystery.

There's a parallel here with another holy mystery of the Church: the Eucharist. The Church has many "strict" teachings about who can and cannot receive the Eucharist, how it's to be received, and with what spiritual dispositions. It would be absurd to conclude that the Church is therefore "down on the Eucharist." It's no less absurd to Conclude that the Church is down on sex because of her strict moral teaching about it.[9]

Historically speaking, God tends to grant the Church what she needs when she needs it. Not until the twentieth century, with its widespread dismissal of long-held sexual mores, did the Church have "need" to deepen her understanding of conjugal love, sex, and marriage beyond her previous brief pronouncements. Hence, as noted before, over two-thirds of what the Catholic Church has ever officially said about sex and marriage has come from Pope John Paul II.

Granted, the Church tends to move slowly. But once this Pope's profound rethinking of the Church's teaching has been assimilated into the consciousness of the Church, it's sure to dispel once and for all the notion that the Church is down on sex.

11. The Church should stick to religion and keep its nose out of my bedroom.

When the Church speaks about sex she is "sticking to religion." Sex is religious event! According to John Paul II, when we speak of the "great sign" of the sacrament of marriage we are speaking about the entire work of creation and redemption.[10]

Sex plunges us headfirst into the Christian mystery. There's no getting around it: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" (1 Cor 6:15).

By becoming "one flesh," spouses establish themselves and their family as the domestic church, a Church in miniature. Thus the Church isn't intruding into the bedroom. Christian spouses are bringing the Church to the bedroom with them.

Sex is sacred. It's holy - more so than our fallen passions sometimes wish it to be. If we think sex is somehow "better" with God out of the picture, we have it totally backward!

The joy of sex - in all its orgasmic grandeur - is meant to be the joy of loving as God loves. The joy of sex - in all its orgasmic grandeur – is meant to be a foretaste of the joys of heaven: the eternal consummation of the marriage between Christ and the Church. Christ gives us his plan for sex through the Church not to be a "kill-joy" but a "bring-joy."

"If you keep my commandments," he said, "you will abide in my love.... These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full" (Jn 15:10-11). So if you want the most awesome, joy-­filled sex possible, open wide the doors to Christ - including (and especially) the bedroom door.

12. I find it quite ironic that old celibate men seek to dictate sexual morality to others. What do they know about sex?

First of all, as we clarified above, the pope and the bishops don't dictate anything to anybody. They simply witness to what God has revealed with the authority that Christ has given them. We always have the freedom to embrace it or reject it.

Second, the message they speak about sexual morality is not their own, it's God's. God created sex. He knows why he did, what it's for, how it can bring great joy when it's respected, and how it can bring great misery when it's abused. In God's wisdom (which is often so different from ours) he has entrusted his plan for sex to these "celibate old men." To repeat our earlier illustration, refusing to listen is just as foolish as putting diesel fuel in your car when the manufacturer's sticker says "unleaded gas only."

Third, anyone who doesn't think celibate men can know anything about sex has never read anything Pope John Paul II has written about it. My wife will not mind my saying that I've learned more from this "celibate old man" about the nature, beauty, and meaning of sex than from anyone else on the planet. His are the insights of a man who has plumbed the depths of his own masculine soul to make sense of his sexuality - and what he discovered there was the spark of the divine. My own life experiences - first as an unchaste teenager and young adult, and now in my own marriage - only confirm what he has to say.

Celibacy affords a desperately needed perspective. Many people have become so intoxicated by sexual indulgence that they can't see the forest for the trees. Granted, for some, forgoing genital sex for the whole of their lives may cause them to eschew their sexuality altogether (not a healthy thing, to be sure - nor is it expressive of an authentic call to the celibate vocation; see chapter nine). For others, the choice of lifelong celibacy propels them all the more to come to terms in their own soul with what sex is all about.

Pope John Paul II is a man who has clearly chosen the latter. His sacrifice of genital sex is our gain - if we have the courage to listen.

13. Why is the Church so obsessed with sex?

Questions like this usually refer to the Church's keen interest in upholding sexual morality. To be sure, the Church does feel an urgent need to uphold the truth about sex. Why? For all the reasons we've noted about how important the issue of sex really is.

Sexuality is not just something biological but concerns the "innermost being of the human person."[11] To the extent that our understanding of sexuality is skewed, so is our understanding of ourselves. Think how intertwined sex is with the mystery of life. Without sex there would be no life.

The deepest truth about sexuality actually reveals the deepest truth about life. It's this: we are called through the gift of God's grace to share in God's life by loving as he loves - and this call is stamped into our very bodies as male and female; it's stamped into our sexuality. Paraphrasing John Paul II: rediscovery of the nuptial meaning of the body always means rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence, the meaning of life.[12] That's why it's such an urgent matter.

The sexual urge taps into the most powerful drives and desires of the human heart. Depending on how they're directed, these drives and desires have the power for great good or great evil. In short, as created by God, the sexual urge was given to us as a "love instinct" that leads to life. But when it's cut off from the source of love and life (God), it tends to become a "lust instinct" that leads to death.

Sexual attitudes and behaviors, then, have the power to orient not only individuals but entire nations and societies as well toward respect for life - or toward its utter disregard. To be sure, when lust is woven into the fabric of a society, that society can be nothing but a "culture of death."

Sound exaggerated? Our nation alone murders over four thousand preborn babies every day in order to satisfy its lusts. And that's only the beginning.

Disordered sexuality is the "Pandora's box" that unleashes a host of societal evils: from the poverty of "fatherless" families and the staggering proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases (some fatal, such as AIDS), to newborns found in dumpsters and increased violence among teens­ - all these can be traced to the breakdown of the sexual mores that hold the family intact as the fundamental cell of society. As sexual attitudes and behaviors go, so goes marriage. As marriage goes, so goes the family. As the family goes, so goes society. Paraphrasing John Paul II once again: human life, its dignity and its balance, depends at every moment of history and at every point on the globe on the proper ordering of love between the sexes.[13]

We will never build a civilization of love and a culture of life unless we first live according to the truth of our sexuality. If the Church is "obsessed" with sex, it's because she's "obsessed" with upholding the dignity and balance of human life and the plan of God for humanity that our sexuality is meant to reveal.