The Christian Dior Yardstick

In January 1976, a 3,500-word document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI was published by one of his ministries. Entitled Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, the document was meant to be a restatement of traditional Christian beliefs on premarital sexual relations, homosexuality, and masturbation. The Declaration itself, together with the reception it received here and in Europe, illustrates the deep organizational crisis of the Roman Church and the unenviable plight of ordinary believers. Their problem is less with the Declaration itself than with the curious quality of the debate that it has provoked.

Reactions were, of course, predictable. Certain conservative circles accepted the Declaration enthusiastically. Academics accorded it mild personal approval. Homosexual-rights groups had a series of duck-fits. But of all the groups who reached into their grabbags of pseudo-theology and ad hoc morality, perhaps the most predictable —as well as the most articulate—reaction came from the clerical “scientists”: they excoriated the document. “Disappointing” and “out of date” was one priest-psychologist’s kindest commentary. And the newspapers and magazines, able to predict the responses of the different camps, each tapped and published the responses most suitable to its particular editorial predilections.

MM

About the Author

Malachi B. Martin

Featured Tags

In January 1976, a 3,500-word document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI was published by one of his ministries. Entitled Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, the document was meant to be a restatement of traditional Christian beliefs on premarital sexual relations, homosexuality, and masturbation. The Declaration itself, together with the reception it received here and in Europe, illustrates the deep organizational crisis of the Roman Church and the unenviable plight of ordinary believers. Their problem is less with the Declaration itself than with the curious quality of the debate that it has provoked.

Reactions were, of course, predictable. Certain conservative circles accepted the Declaration enthusiastically. Academics accorded it mild personal approval. Homosexual-rights groups had a series of duck-fits. But of all the groups who reached into their grabbags of pseudo-theology and ad hoc morality, perhaps the most predictable —as well as the most articulate—reaction came from the clerical “scientists”: they excoriated the document. “Disappointing” and “out of date” was one priest-psychologist’s kindest commentary. And the newspapers and magazines, able to predict the responses of the different camps, each tapped and published the responses most suitable to its particular editorial predilections.