Across Religions, Persistent Battles Over What the Faithful May Read

From: The New York Times

Mark Makela for The New York Times

Prof. Emran El-Badawi is part of an effort to establish an organization that will undertake scholarly exploration of the Koran.
By MARK OPPENHEIMER

In 2006, Sister Margaret Farley, a pioneering theologian now retired from Yale Divinity School, wrote “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics,” which contains approving words for masturbation, same-sex marriage and remarriage after divorce. Last week — six years later — the Vatican made public Cardinal William J. Levada’s letter pronouncing that the book “cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.”

Considering that Cardinal Levada leads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office known in the 16th century as the Inquisition, his words were fairly benign. There was no formal penalty attached to the letter. Sister Farley was not prohibited from writing or teaching. And while her book cannot be used in official Catholic catechism classes, it can still be used, even at Catholic universities, by its intended audience: graduate students, theologians, scholars.

So the Farley indictment is pretty ineffectual as a way of banishing “Just Love” — indeed, the paperback version has shot to No. 16 on Amazon.com. But the episode raises anew the question, always lurking in the cathedral, of who decides what we’re allowed to read, and how we’re supposed to read it. In religion, who controls the books?

In the Reformation, Protestants were persecuted for making the Bible available in vernacular translations, so that laypeople, in addition to priests, could read it. But translation was just one battleground in the war over who controls religious literature. And while the battles have been particularly fierce in the Catholic Church, they are not unique to Catholicism, or Christianity.

“The papacy was not the first to begin this idea of censoring books,” said John W. O’Malley, a Jesuit priest and historian at Georgetown University. “The indices of books that were prohibited, at the universities of Paris and Louvain and so forth, started in the 16th century. It all began with printing.”

In 1559, the papacy issued its first Index of Prohibited Books. “And ever since then,” Dr. O’Malley said, “the papacy has issued lists of books that were prohibited at various levels, either as heretical, or in this case,” he added, referring to Sister Farley’s book, “apparently not to be used for teaching.” The Index of Prohibited Books was abolished in 1966, although the Catholic Church still says which books are appropriate for Catholic instruction, and periodically makes a public case over a book that goes too far astray.

In Islam, there is no central authority like the papacy. But there are widespread, and passionate, disagreements about how to read the Koran, the religion’s central text. Although there is a long history of critical study of Islam, and there have been scholars and Muslim religious leaders who read many of its passages more freely or metaphorically, Muslim fundamentalists — like Protestant fundamentalists with their Bible — condemn any reading of the Koran that is not purely literal.

That stridency is surely on the minds of the scholars forming the Society for Qur’anic Studies, the first professional organization dedicated to critical exploration of the Koran. On May 29, the Society for Biblical Literature, the major association for Bible scholars, announced that it had received $140,000 from the Henry Luce Foundation to help it spin off this new society “to give the academic study of the Qur’an the attention it deserves,” according to John F. Kutsko, who teaches at Emory University, in Atlanta, and helped secure the grant.

In the Muslim world today, Koran scholarship often means memorization of the Koran. There are a growing number of scholars in the secular academy, particularly in the West, who study the Koran from a skeptical or academic position, exploring its philological and literary qualities, or using the tools of history and archaeology. But it is an open question how the wider Muslim world will receive this increasingly prominent scholarship.

“That is the million-dollar question,” says Emran El-Badawi, who teaches at the University of Houston and is co-director of the “consultation” (to use the academic jargon) planning the new society. “Since our press release came out, we have received no negative press in this regard, that this is against the faith. However, as this initiative receives more attention, the possibility widens that certain groups, let’s say within minority communities in Western countries, or in the Islamic world, might potentially have a problem with what we do.”

Dr. Badawi hopes that naysayers will attend the planned conferences, and read the new journal that he is helping to found, before adjudging that the scholarship disrespects the Koran. But some people, he said, will be tough to win over: “Prior to us really establishing ourselves, there will be questions.”

Plenty of religions have some notion of the forbidden text (or the text to be treated really, really delicately). Earlier in Jewish history, some rabbis taught that nobody under the age of 40 should study kabbalah, a collection of mystical texts. In Scientology, only people who have spent years in study, and paid thousands of dollars for the necessary coursework, are eligible for the highest levels of knowledge.

By those standards, Sister Farley’s “Just Love,” which can be had online for $27.95, is forbidden knowledge on the cheap. Even if it is, at least at Amazon, temporarily out of stock.

About these ads

About Gertrude

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. and the courage to change the things I can... On Twitter: @marion_luscombe
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Across Religions, Persistent Battles Over What the Faithful May Read

  1. teresa says:

    Even for $27.95, it is too much money and time spent on sister Farley. Her thesis is to be disobedient is love, to love means to be ideologically conform to the liberal notion of sexuality. Sorry, a very stale and unoriginal thesis which is most boring to young people.

    Just consider that for the same price you can buy any great book written by Goethe, Thomas Mann, Tolstoy, Plato, Aristotle …. So I don’t see any reason that we lay faithful should use our money to support the easy life style of Sister Farley. If she really cares so much for love and suffering people as she claim to be, she would do better by proving it by her action. For example a great expression of loving the God and one’s human being is joining the order of Mother Teresa.

    Less words more deeds.

  2. Toad says:

    .
    .
    “Less words more deeds.”

    Says Teresa, who is no doubt planning to join the order of Mother Teresa any day now.

  3. teresa says:

    No Toad, I not am claiming to be so loving that I want to sell a book at the price of $27 under the title of “Just Love”. And I am not a nun (like sister Farley is one) who neglects her duty and violates her vow of obedience. I am a very simple lay woman and have no ambition to be claimed by “tolerant” “nice” secular minded people to be “such a loving and nice Christian so open-mined and not at all like the bigots who stick to the medieval Church teaching”.

    I am not such terrific holy people like you and sister Farley, you know.

  4. .

    “I am not such terrific holy people like you and sister Farley, you know. “

    Cripes! Bit touchy, aren’t we today?

    Toad’s never been described as “holy” before.
    Probably never will be again.

    Naturally you’ve read the book, Teresa.
    It seems you find the price more offensive than anything else.
    Would it be acceptable at $2.70?

  5. Toad says:

    .
    “I am not such terrific holy people like you and sister Farley, you know.”

    Cripes! Bit touchy today aren’t we?

    Toad has never before in his life been called “holy.” Not to his face, anyway.
    Probably never will be again, either.

    Teresa, who has obviously read the offending tome, seems to consider the price its most outrageous aspect.
    Would it be less unacceptable at $2.70? Sales seem to be going very well. I expect a lot of young people who enjoy being bored are buying it. Perhaps that’s why Teresa did.

  6. Toad says:

    .
    But Teresa’s right about one thing. I won’t read it at any price.
    Read it by all means, but only after you’ve read all Tolstoy, Flaubert, Dickens, and, yes, Thomas Mann and about a thousand other good writers.
    Thinks Toad.

  7. Gertrude says:

    The actual book whilst mentioning Farley is reviewed by Oppenheimer, written by Dr. Emran El-Badawi, and has a valid point. Whilst I disagree with Farley on almost everything in her book, and of course the Vatican pronouncement on it leaves me with nothing more to say about her. However, with (I think) Voltaire, I would defend the right of anyone to express their opinion and would not like to see the days return of the Index when we distinctly told what we might or might not read.

  8. teresa says:

    Toad, I didn’t read the book, but the summary of its content suffices to tell me to avoid it. No, sister Farley’s book is not even worth reading at the price of 2.70, think of the time you will waste by reading things like this, same applies to Hans Küng’s books and all the typical narcissistic laments by the typical 68′s generation.

    People have limited time and resource which shouldn’t be wasted on things as useless as blaming the Church for all our woes. Some people may need this kind of books for their own self-reassurance, but for me, as one who definitely doesn’t have the psychical need of having someone say to me how bad the Church authority is and how holier and nicer you will become by adopting the prevailing “liberal” views, I would rather give all of these publications, academical or not, a total miss.

    By the way the book is not at all “offending”, it is just written by someone who is malcontent with the Church and wants to embrace the value of the modern and “nicer” liberal crowd. Nothing offensive, but definitely a waste of time because there are much more important and better things to do.

  9. Toad says:

    .
    Gertrude is quite right, citing Voltaire, who was, of course one of the marquee names on the Index.
    In fact the Index had its uses.
    As a boy, I had only to be told that a book was featured on it, to dash out and grab a copy from the library.

    That’s how I read “The Three Musketeers,” and, more importantly, “Candide,” an eye-opening book.

    “…and all the typical narcissistic laments by the typical 68′s generation.”
    Teresa’s got Toad down to a “T!”
    Bang to rights!
    Typical!

  10. teresa says:

    The Index was abolished before I was born, and I never felt being intellectually confined by the Church. In my school days, we were welcome to read Voltaire but not the Bible because I had an atheistic education. Nothing against Voltaire though, as his works belong to the important products of human culture, but I am entitled to read him and all other authors in the way I find to be correct.

    Intellectual freedom lies in one’s own hands, it depends on whether you are decided to use your own faculty of judgement or just to listen to the voice of the mainstream society. Most human beings are influenced by the environment and take fashionable ideas instead of the result of their own thinking.

    Today, people are encouraged to criticise religious authorities, but what they don’t realize is that even the idea of criticizing the modern society will appear to them as outrageous, nutty, intolerant. So holy the modern culture has become to modern men and women that they are afraid to say anything against what the mainstream culture dictates. In short, they forbid themselves from thinking critically of the current culture and society. Only the past and the others (that is, “bigot” Christians) are free to be critized, but never ME (the ego) and the modern society, which nurtured this oversized Ego.

  11. Gertrude says:

    I have to agree with you Toad – ah the follies of youth. I especially agree with your experience of Candide. If I remember some of D.H. Lawrence was also banned. Shame really because as you say, we wanted to read them all the more, and it least we arrived at adulthood being reasonably well-read even if Mother Superior might not have been best pleased! :-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s