Theology in Interdisciplinary Research About Human Sexuality: Introductory Reflections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I found the topic of role of ethics and moral theology in the study of human sexuality most fascinating and was looking forward to reading how you approach it. I must say that, unfortunately, this paper does not deliver on the promises made in an abstract and introduction. What I mean by that is in the following: 

1. In Abstract, claims are made that in the following paper "the place of theology within the framework of interdisciplinary research on human sexuality" is going to be reflected on, and that "the author [will] justif[y] the need for a theological discourse on this topic". However, neither of the two aims (as published paper needs to have stated aims), are delivered on. Namely, while the paper calls for interdisciplinary research on the topic of human sexuality, majority of the paper are assumptions about what humanities and social science research on human sexuality is about, their methodologies and actual purpose of such research. The paper amalgamates all disciplines that are not theology into a basket of perceived sameness with no nuance shown or acknowledged. The actual theological discourse advocated is not developed apart from being stated numerous times.

2. I find it curious that in the paper there are reductionist approaches to the study of sexuality mentioned while you write in a gendered manner and primarily focus your critique on sexological and socio-biological approaches. The entire paper needs to read less as a tirade about all other approaches that are not theological, and the role of ethics and moral theology in the study of human sexuality needs to be developed and consistently argued through examples. Apart from a reflection on tenderness, there are no real examples of theological thinking about human sexuality.

3. The focus of the paper needs to be clear from the start and maintained throughout. Is the focus on the role of ethics and moral theology in the study of human sexuality (which should be then interspersed with examples from other disciplines that are more discipline specific), or is the focus on how other disciplines approach the study of sexuality (and even in this case, I would suggest to focus on sexological and socio-biological approaches as it seems that you are most familiar with those), and where exactly moral theology can be useful to deepen the understanding within, what you call, 'individua sciences'.

4. Finally, in its current form, there are contradiction in the paper between the aims made in the abstract and introduction and what the paper ultimately delivers on.

I believe there is a great potential in this paper; it just needs a clearer focus and the knowledge of moral theology and its contribution to other (specific) disciplines needs to be made much clearer.

Author Response

Thank you much for this review, which contains general remarks . I agree mainly with it. You have right, that the aim of it is not clear.  MY itention is to write about necessity of interdisciplinar reasearch about sexuality in which theology can and should be involved. My ppaper is an intrudtion to this question. So I cnagned the title of my paper and some formulations in it and addes the sentence at the end of it about need of more detailed studies to this topic.
My intention is not to write about reductionist approach, but I critise it and wite about necessity of interdisciplinary (beginns at line 247) and I showed some exaples of reductionst apptoaches (lines 166-246).
The focus of my paper is not how to make inerdisicplinry studies in which is theology involved becaue it need to be elaborated in a broader study. My focus is to make inspitations in this regard. It express the changed title (introducotry reflecion).
In this way I think to deliver more clearer paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the topic of this paper is very interesting and important for the contemporary culture and today theological reflection. Generally, I think that this sort of analysis is really needed and worth of being pursued. However, I think that author has not enough developed own arguments to justify the main idea of the paper.

 

I find that the main idea of the paper is to justify the need for a theological discourse on the topic of sexuality. Good point.

 

Below I enumerate some places in the paper showing that article does not sufficiently defend the place of theology within the framework of interdisciplinary research on human sexuality.

 

 

19-21: Reflections lead to the conclusion about a holistic vision of sexuality, which is possible on the basis of interdisciplinary discourse and research on sexuality, in which its polyvalent dimension is taken into account.

Objection: Author in many places is stating that sexuality is polyvalent in its dimension. I agree. Then author claims that there is a need for interdisciplinary research. I agree. But such a claim already states what was to be proved. In other words: if one has assumed that something needs interdisciplinary approach, then any single-perspective is reductive.

The question is: why and what sort of interdisciplinary research is needed?

Why? – because sexuality is complex. The author argues for this claim, as far as I can see. But maybe there are also other arguments?

What? – what sort of interdisciplinary research is adequate for this sort of phenomenon? It is crucial question that is not adequately addressed in the text. I will come back to this problem later.

 

 

102

cannot ignore the consideration of ethical and theological reflection

121

and it is understood that research results of empirical sciences are insufficient

251

but should also include approaches proposed by philosophy and theology.

 

Objection: In various places author is using above phrases but what is still lacking, is the force of argumentation to support such claims. It should be more clearly stated in which context and to what degree empirical sciences or other branches of science are insufficient. Why one needs theology to speak about sexuality? For instance, why psychology or philosophy without theology is not enough? Do I need God or Gospel to speak about sexual desire, fidelity etc.?

 

 

198

There are indeed many serious studies and research showing the genetic basis of homosexuality, as well as studies that question the results of these studies.

Objection: Which studies? Since author is speaking about some reductionist approaches to sexuality, one would expect more references to the topic than book of Fukuyama.

 

 

214-219

Another example of a reductive approach to sexuality is the overemphasis of biological aspects while considering the psychological, social and cultural aspects of sexuality and sexual differentiation as secondary or underestimating them, as well as emphasizing the procreative function of sexuality while ignoring its other functions and meanings. For centuries, this approach has been characteristic of the Catholic Church’s position on sexuality and is also dominant in contemporary approaches, which emphasize the need to oppose the so-called gender ideology.

Objection: Generally, it is true that for centuries position of Catholic Church was mainly focused on the procreative function of sexuality. But not only. One would expect some references to Church Fathers or prominent theologians who spoke on sexuality.

What is striking is the fact that author does not mention the huge change and emphasis on sexuality since times of Paul VI (“Humanae vitae”) and John Paul II. The latter has dedicated big amount of theological reflection on sexuality, theology of body, desire, intentionality of sexual acts etc. Even if author does not agree with the philosophical-theological content proposed by JPII, nevertheless the volume of catechesis “Man and woman He created them” according to me is a necessary point of reference to speak about the vision of human sexuality according to recent catholic teaching.

 

 

220-222

“The concerns of the Catholic position on the understanding of sexuality are mainly about the danger of undermining the biological gender binary and promoting the possibility of freely choosing gender identity”

Objection: It is enough to look at the post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” of pope Francis, or above-mentioned teaching of pope JPII, to see that it is not the main point. It is one of the important aspects present within catholic position, but not the main one. If it is the main one according to author, one would expect that author will provide the evidence for this claim based on study of literature.

 

 

272-274

“Therefore, there is a relationship of mutual subordination between the empirical sciences and the theological sciences (theological ethics), which determines the path of a specific search for moral norms and provides for multifaceted possibilities of opposition.”

Objection: I think that it is too simple vision of the relation between theology and empirical sciences. One can object: why should I consider subordination of empirical sciences to theology?

Apart from the warfare (conflict) relation theology-science, one can imagine the situation where science indicates a way of doing research that can profoundly solicit theology. Science works from known theories to develop hypotheses: the verification of new hypotheses allows then to choose the most valid solution. Similarly, theology could elaborate new speculative models by developing hypotheses rooted in established notions and contents of scientific research. My main worry is that author is not considering possibilities of mutual interaction between theology and sciences, but tacitly assumes the sort of warfare relation.

Moreover, the author should reflect more on the role and relation of theology to other sciences in the light of recent documents of Catholic Church. Just to give an impression. A dynamic and polyphonic character of theology has been confirmed by recent statements of the Church Magisterium. For instance, according to the document of International Theological Commission (Theology today: perspectives, principles and criteria, 2011), various factors have contributed to plurality of theology, such as: more and more internal specialization into different disciplines, a diversification of theological styles because of the external influence of other sciences. Finally, is worth of mentioning teaching of pope Francis expressed in his Constitution “Veritatis Gaudium” (2018), aimed at the renewal of ecclesiastical studies at every level. This document in very innovative way insists on inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches carried out with wisdom and creativity in the light of Revelation. What sort of interdisciplinarity author proposes? Suggestion that different sciences should study the phenomenon is very simplistic vision of interdisciplinarity – it is just “permission” to do investigation from different points of view.

 

 

 

303-304

According to the German moral theologian Johannes Gründel (1929–2015), the attitude to tenderness, which provides a value orientation, should be at the center of the discourse on sexuality.

Objection: This part seems to be especially worth of further investigation. If this paper is going to give more insights how interdisciplinary studies on sexuality should be done, this part must be developed. My concern is that the attitude to tenderness does not necessarily assume any theological justification. One can be an atheist and speak about human tenderness. Thus, what author develops here does not justify adequately claim about need of theological study of sexuality. Instead, one would expect here the sort of theological or philosophical reflection on love, erotic love, tenderness etc. with reference to Bible, catechesis of JP II or other theological reflections. In this context author could also refer to Roger Scruton’s philosophy on sexual morality, particularly in his book “Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic”. Taking inspiration from this sort of reflection could help author to develop argumentation for the necessity of theology in approaching sexuality.

Other concepts worth of analysing could be love and fidelity, reciprocal intentionality in sexual relation, critique of pure pleasure, virtues in the context of erotic love, Christ as the model of love, theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Adrienne von Speyr on analogy between sexual act and Trinitarian love etc.

Author Response

This review is very interessting and contains a lot of remarks. IN this paper I argue that the interdisciplanry approach on sexuality is needed and the theology is one of the disciplines which in dialogoue with others should take reflexion on it. The paper hae not to aim to show details of the contribution of theology in aproaches on sexuality but to make sure the necessity of it. So I changed the title of my paper, which have an introdutory characte to this question. The crucial questionabout sort of an adequate rsearch on sexuality should be elaboreted in a broader study.
It is not possilble in this bref paper. 

About reasons for speache of theology about sexuality in dialogue with other sciences I wrote in point 2 and 139=165.
I do not agree with remarks on Fuckuyama, because it is only exemple like the critical remarks to Catholic teaching on procreative perspective of sexality. The aim of my paper is not to explain the teaching of popes on sexuality. This can be the next step to elaborate detailed questions in this regard. There are only two examples in which I write about reductionist aproaches and make clear that there are not right.

The asertion about subordination is right and I did not aimed to devaluate any science. I wanted underline the need of diaolouge between sciences in research on sexuality. So I changed the formulation and replced it with dialouge. So is it compatible to the transdisciplinary studies about the is the speach in Veritatis Gaudium.

I apology the use of text by Johannes Grundel because in it is a speach about the central idea of sexuality - love. I know that are some others works on this theme and as an author of an article I can chose from the whole literature one text and do not have to elaborate the theory of love. This is not a study, but an article which present introductional relfexions on a complex problem. At the end of my paper I added sentence which expresses the introductory character of it and need of elaboration in a broather study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

 

• Lines 11-12: The definition of “theology” provided by the author makes this appropriation of the human understanding of the human experience fit for “philosophy”, but I would counter, not fit for “theology”, which of necessity is focused upon God. As a preamble to the article, in the abstract, I would be cautious to include a statement as glaringly bold as this.
• The introductory section mentions “anthropological principles”, but these do not seem to have been made clear in the section above, and they are also not elaborated upon in what follows.
• Lines 76-79: How would the author relate the emerging field of “gender studies” to their articulation of the study of sexuality? Much work of this kind seems to be happening within Gender Studies.
• Lines 101-106: Whilst emphasising the ethical and theological interest that sexuality has given rise to in researchers, it can be contended that there are many more dimensions of philosophy that would be interested in sexuality, such as, ontology, philosophical anthropology, social philosophy, political philosophy, etc.
• Lines 111-114: The inability to reduce human sexuality, as highlighted by the author is notable, as all attempts to capture essences have failed, and certainly, one could therefore agree that a multidisciplinary approach is most fitting.
• In section 4, building on section 3, the assumption is made that theology is of necessity a science. However, the mention of this could draw out considerations of how theology may be considered akin to physics, chemistry, mathematics. Indeed, the reach of positivist a priori analytic and a posteriori synthetic statements has been far. Thus, the author could develop the idea that science includes theology.
• Lines 219-220: Rather than appealing to a nameless unknown, provide actual examples, cf. “… and is also dominant in contemporary approaches, which emphasize the need to oppose the so-called gender ideology.”
• Lines 239-240 stipulate: “Biological (sex) and social constructions of sex (gender) should not be separated from each other…”: It would be helpful for the argument to carry weight if some rationale for why sex and gender should not be separated, were provided.
• Lines 244-246: Some embellishment of this argument would be helpful.
• I note that up to section 5 of the article, the argument has not been made abundantly clear why theology adds to the multidisciplinary theorisation over human sexuality, which should speak to the overall purpose of the article, as articulated in lines 254-255: “Ultimately, it is about presenting the polyvalent nature of human sexuality, which will not be reduced to one aspect.”
• Line 272 speaks of: “… the personal destiny of man to live in dignity, freedom and responsibility”, fair enough, but according to which source is this the proper end of the human being? And why?

 

Comments relating to grammatical and spelling errors:

 

The essay is very well written, and I could not detect any grammatical or spelling errors. The author should be commended on this. However, I would draw the author’s attention to the lack of gender inclusive language, which is surprising in a paper devoted to issues of sexuality. For instance, in lines 153, 155, 165, 268, 269, 272, and 279, the usage of “man” and “his” should be altered to reflect the multigender nature of humanity.

 

Comments relating to citations and the bibliography:

 

• Citations:
  • Please provide citations for the following sentences:
    • Line 159
    • Lines 189
    • Line 198
  • Bibliography:
    • The bibliography is solidly put together.

 

Overall comments and recommendation:

 

• The article is well-written, with very few linguistic and grammatical errors.
• The sources provided in the text of the work as well as the bibliography are sufficient for what is presented in the article. However, this does not mean that the purpose of the article is achieved, and this would be my biggest criticism of the article.
• Considering the article as a whole, it is abundantly clear that the various humanities have come to highlight sexuality as a polyvalent aspect of human reality, which cannot be reduced to oversimplifications. However, there is very little research from the perspective of theology that is actually provided within the article to support the claim in the conclusion that “… research from the area of theological sciences has an unquestionable place in…” studies of human sexuality. To this end, I would suggest that the author reconsider section 5 as a whole, and spend much more energy in developing more robust considerations of how sub-disciplines in theological discourse could speak to the overall problem of the non-reduction of human sexuality to a singular interpretive lens. For example, it could be clearly developed how the areas of (1) moral theology; (2) spirituality; (3) pastoral care and counselling, and (4) theological formation/education, speak to the need for the theological disciplines’ inclusion in studies of human sexuality.

Author Response

The article has an intodutory character to the question and aimed to be inspiration for broader studies in this regard and presupoeses the understanding of theology and anthropogy principles. I changed the title of it. 

I do not discuse with a specific kind of gender studies and mention them mainly. There is now place for aleaboration a problem of theology as a science. May be there assertion concerns the word sciences. The matter is now to elaborate detailed reflexion and arguments in discussion with gender studies. I aimed to underline the need and necessity ot interidisciplianry approaches on sexuality in which theology should have a place. In the convention of dialouge of disciplnes there is a speach of destiny of man, human dignity, freeedom and responsability which are important theological ideas.

I changes some for words that respect the gender inclusive language. The citations for line 159 is in line 165 and for lines 189 and 198 in line 213.
The general character of this paper which is an intraductory reflexion on need of theology in resaerch about human sexuality opens and ispires to detailed studies in this area in which can be elaborated and developed individual aspects.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

thank you for your response. It is better expressed now in your paper that this is a 'scoping' exercise to show how interdisciplinary approach(es) should involve theology as well. Perhaps in your next paper the question of where is the place of theology and how it would enhance interdisciplinary approach would be answered in detail and I am looking forward to reading such paper.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still think that author could work more on the idea of the dialogue between theology and other sciences and present more clearly how this dialogue should be done in the research context of sexuality.