Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics

by Margaret Farley

Examines the sexual beliefs and practices of different religions, cultures, genders, and relationships to propose a modern-day framework on the topic that is more focused on love rather than sex.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Sexuality, Christianity, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Feminism

336 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Amicizia · Rating 1 out of 5]

In March 2012 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reported the presence of doctrinal errors in this book, where Sr. Farley did not present a correct understanding of Church teaching, and publication of her errors have caused confusion among the faithful. The report can be read here.

For example:

Sr. Farley writes: "Masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers. In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them. My final observation is, then, that the norms of justice as I have presented them would seem to apply to the choice of sexual self-pleasuring only insofar as this activity may help or harm, only insofar as it supports or limits, well-being and liberty of spirit. This remains largely an empirical question, not a moral one" (p. 236).

Deliberate use of sexual faculties outside marriage is contrary to its purpose. Sr. Farley's statement is in direct contradiction to Church teaching. Several other errors were found in Sr. Farley's work on the matter of marriage itself.

[Katey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Margaret Farley has dedicated her life to this work, and this book is a masterpiece. It is accessible and offers a paradigm of justice towards which we all should strive in every relationship, sexual or platonic. And, she certainly practices what she teaches in this book.

[M Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

With great care and lucidity, Margaret Farley accomplishes in this book just what the subtitle suggests -- she establishes a framework for Christian sexual ethics. She spends very little of the book (only the last chapter) doing much in the way of addressing specific issues in sexual ethics but the book is an important and needed step in setting the ground rules for conversation on a host of topics.

Sr. Margaret (R.S.M.) begins with a survey of sexual ethics from a number of historical and cultural milieus and considers how we might understand sex and gender from cross-cultural platforms. It is an impressive foundation for the book, well-thought out and clearly expressed. She then moves to understandings of love, again with historical referent and special attention to the teachings of Jewish and Christian scriptures.

The meat of the book, in my opinion, is her work on the interplay between justice and love, on the one hand, and justice and sex on the other. Here is where she pulls all of the disparate threads she has presented together in beginning to create that coherent framework.

This book will not please everyone. Conservatives in the Abrahamic religions will find much to argue with. It is, however, an honest attempt to deal with one of the hottest topics in today's ethics and one which does so with theological integrity.

Highly recommended.

[Dnicebear · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's been a while since I've read a theology or ethics book, and I got inspired to read this when the pope recently censored Ms Farley and her writing, and then a former professor of mine made a comment about her on Facebook. Turns out it's a fabulous book, and I'm soaking up the gently written perspectives.

Today I read and re-read the paragraph about "the biblical witness" that "claims to present truths that will heal us, make us whole; that will free us, not enslave us to what violates our very sense of truth and justice. Its appeal to us is, in the words of the philosopher Paul Ricoeur, a 'nonviolent appeal.' As a revelation of truth, it asks for something less like a submission of will and more like an opening of the imagination--and hence the whole mind and heart. In its own terms, then, it cannot be believed unless it 'rings true' to our deepest capacity for truth and goodness." (p. 195)

I keep reading here and there throughout the book while also reading through, and I'm enjoying this discussion--no, really, an invitation, to step into the times. After all it's going on 200 years since the ovum was discovered.

[Kathryn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved reading this non-fiction Catholic research work on searching for a new sexual ethic for our time, and, when I had to return my library copy, bought my own copy of this book. I will note, though, that the brook brought criticism and censure from the Holy See (specifically from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) for moral views which oppose the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but that this book and its views has received both support and endorsement from the dissident groups Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the Catholic Theological Society of America. (For those brave enough to go against the Church’s opinion, I very much recommend this book.)

There are seven chapters within this book; in the first five chapters, the author, in dense theological language thicketed with footnotes, considers the questions of sex and morality. She looks at theories that have been popular in the West, at cross-cultural traditions, and at the question of what the body is, what the soul is, and what the relation is between the two. It is in her sixth chapter that she gets to the heart of her conclusions: essentially, that a sexual relationship between any two given people should be one in which no unjust harm is done, in which freely given consent of both parties is given, and in which mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice exists between the parties. In her final chapter she considers ramification of these proposed norms for married couples, for same-sex couples, and for those who are divorced and / or remarried.

Personally, I think that these seven norms of sexual justice and love make eminent sense. However, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stated, “With this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.” I believe that the Church essentially believes that sexuality should be confined only to sacramentally married heterosexual couples, who should only engage in sexual practices that can lead to the procreation of children, without reservation or birth control of any kind. Therefore, I can see why they would take issue with Sr. Farley’s much broader framework for Christian sexual ethics. So I recommend this book, in spite of the opinion of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and if that means that I am not of the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church, so be it.

[Mary Helene · Rating 5 out of 5]

I did not actually read every word of this scholarly work. I have heard Margaret Farley lecture and so I went looking for the parts which interested me most. Years ago I heard her speak about the importance in moral decision making of asking questions. She posed 7 questions to ask and I have used those questions for a wider range of issues. (When my good friend wanted to kill herself as she was dying of cancer, and her family wondered if they could help her: I used these questions. When my son moved in with his girlfriend: I used these questions. When friends wondered if they should treat their infertility with embryonic transfer, these questions were helpful. I thought they worked better in concrete situations than drawing a line and pre-packaging the answer.) I paraphrase her principles as questions here, drawn from p.231, and I assume the whole book leads up to these principles. Dr./Sister Fahley restricts these questions to sexual relationship, but in the absence of anything better, I apply them to a range of decisions, acts and relationships.

1.Does this act (or relationship) cause unjust harm?
2.Is this a freely chosen act?
3.Is this mutual?
4.Is it equal?
5.Is there a commitment?
6.Is it fruitful?
7.Is it socially just?

[Sagely · Rating 2 out of 5]

So much information and counter-information swirls about in the religious debates around sexuality. As our congregation seeks to navigate a faithful ethical course, I really wish for someone to cut through this mess.

Margaret Farley's Just Love is not the book to do that. I had hoped it would be. The splash it made in the press and in the RC church led me to believe that JL had something new and insightful to say. In fact, the first three chs of introductory material fanned my hopes. JL does a great job of situating the conversation around sexuality historically and cross-culturally.

But all this good preparatory putters out when Farley turns to a constructive ethics. Instead of shedding light or cutting through the fog, Farley grabs some (very appealing) convictions shared in USAmerican culture and spins an ethics appealing but founded on air. Autonomy and relationality are admirable values. But to add to the conversation (or add clarity), they need to be robustly grounded as proper starting points for an ethics. Farley fails to do this in JL.

Overall, JL leaves me disappointed, though still grateful for its introductory material.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a funny way, the Vatican did us all a favor by issuing a harsh rebuke about this book six years after it was first published. Never mind all that, Farley wrote a thoughtful, readable argument for ethical standards in matters of love and sexuality. Norms of commitment, equality, mutuality may or may not sound revolutionary but her claim that justice must be a component of all our relationships does. Farley convinces us that social justice is a necessary part of couple and familial relationships, and she means "social" beyond the couple or family. I am grateful to whoever in the Vatican called attention to this book, which has become an Amazon best seller since the critique. There's justice!

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent text, Farley begins with a brief review of questions as to why this should be studied and why we need a framework at this time for sexual ethics. She then follows this with a long discussion of sexuality in historical, religious, and socio-cultural contexts and traditions. A discussion of sexuality and its meanings, including an examination of gender makes up a significant portion of what follows. There is then a short look at preliminary considerations and sources of Christian sexual ethics. It is not until two-thirds of the text has passed before you get to Farley's proposed framework for which she gives seven "Norms for Just Sex." They are: 1) do no unjust harm; 2) free consent; 3) mutuality; 4) equality; 5) commitment; 6) fruitfulness; and 7) social justice. She follows this with special questions related to adults versus adolescents, masturbation, and the negative potentials of sex. Her final chapter examines three contexts for the application of her proposed framework: marriage and family, same-sex relationships, and divorce and remarriage.

Initially made aware of "Just Love" after hearing of the Catholic hierarchy's censure of the book as it allegedly promotes female masturbation and finds conclusions for the acceptability of remarriage after divorce. These were issues which were touched upon, but not in the flaming heretical ways one would think by the language of the censors. Instead, Sr. Farley, a highly regarded and respected Catholic feminist theologian, draws largely from Catholic teachings and traditions (and as a non-Catholic, I need to look some of these up for my own understanding) as well as those from various Protestant denominations. What comes through is not heresy, or a lack of Catholic theology as I have read on some Amazon.com reviews, but what I hope will one day be considered, a prophetic voice which has taken into account what has been, what is, and what may be.

I would have appreciated a greater fleshing out of some of her thoughts, but I found myself engaging with the text as I have not done with any other for many years, underlining key phrases, looking up referenced sources for further study, making notes and asking questions in the margins. I would like to rate this at 4.5 stars because so little time, as compared to the review of histories and traditions, is spent on the framework itself and demonstrations of applicability, but as that is not possible, I have opted to "round-up" my rating as my interests and energies for moral and feminist theologies have been renewed.

[Rhonda McCarty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Farley does an excellent job of surveying the history of sexual ethics and attempts to introduce cross-cultural examples, although, by her own admission, those are limited in this book in order to get to the specific work at hand, carefully looking at information from a variety of disciplines and contexts, how we understand embodiment, gender, and sexuality, as well as how we relate justice to love, and then examine various frameworks of sexual ethics, keeping all of that in mind. Finally, she gives us her own recommended framework, which she refers to as sexual justice, and discusses how it would apply to marriage and family, same-sex relationships, and divorce and remarriage. Her norms are based on “respect for autonomy and relationality that characterize persons as ends in themselves, and hence respect for their well-being” and include doing no unjust harm, free consent, mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice (p. 231). She does not engage scripture as much as De La Torre. She attempts to show that scriptures prohibiting homosexuality have been misinterpreted, but the bottom line is that they “must be read against the whole of the biblical witness” (273). For Farley the norm is love guided, protected, nourished and formed by justice (311), and we see this in her treatment of divorce and remarriage as well, where she allows for the reality of brokenness and the inability to make a failed marriage tolerable just by willing it to be so.

[Elizabeth]

eponis wrote: My favorite book so far on sexuality and Christianity is Margaret Farley's Just Love. She goes beyond disproving classic critiques of homosexuality to create a framework of ethical Christian sexuality that's sensible, Scriptural, and genuinely challenging. It's easy to say "srsly, y'all, gay people are okay"; she says "okay, so given the myriad of human sexualities, how can our sexual identities be incarnated with justice and love?" It's fabulous.
-http://eponis.livejournal.com/421901....

[Adrienna · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read up to 80 or so pages, reads too scholarly for me like a dissertation. No more!

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

"A love is right and good insofar as it aims to affirm truthfully the concrete reality of the beloved."

[Jennifer]

Anytime the Vatican condemns something, I wanna read it!

[Zachary · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Just Love, Margaret Farley, a member of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy, strives to articulate and defend a framework for Christian sexual ethics that is rooted in justice. Like other feminists, Farley rejects a strict dichotomy between justice and love but rather insists that justice is “what guides, protects, nourishes, and forms love, and what makes love just and true” (311). While she explicitly aims to promote a Christian sexual ethic, the norms she advocates as constitutive of just love and the reasons she offers in defense of those norms are comprehensible to those without Christian commitments. At the same time, Farley also draws on Christian sources of moral knowledge, like scripture and Christian tradition, to inform her sexual ethic and situate it in relation to alternative Christian interpretations of sex and sexuality from Augustine to Pope John Paul II. In all this, Farley is fair, appropriately critical, and attuned to the culturally particular and socially constructed nature of how people all over the world and across time have understood sex. Nevertheless, she insists, neither cultural particularity nor social construction should inhibit serious moral reflection about how to lead our sexual lives—for just as sex can enrich and enhance our lives with one another and before God, it can also cause serious harm.

To better understand the questions and issues at stake in contemporary sexual ethics, Farley canvasses recent theories of sex and sexuality offered by Michel Foucault, Catharine MacKinnon, and evolutionary historians, as well as how ancient Mediterranean cultures, Judaism, and Christianity have historically understood sex. Importantly, however, she also introduces several cross-cultural contemporary perspectives to better appreciate the historically conditioned and socially constructed nature of our own western conceptions of sex. Such cross-cultural comparisons, she maintains, also widen the horizon of moral inquiry so as to introduce potentially instructive points of moral emphasis and help promote mutual respect and tolerance between cultures. Ultimately, Farley concludes that cultural diversity in sexual beliefs and practices underscores “the very plasticity of human sexuality, its susceptibility to different meanings and expressive forms” (104). She claims that those of us in western, Euro-Atlantic societies can learn from this diversity in that the beliefs and practices of other cultures can help us critique our own culture and its traditions. They help us see, for example, that when it comes to sexuality, there are tensions between the interests of individuals and the community, that sexuality can serve different (and sometimes conflictual) ends, and that our inherited notions of sexuality are in many respects socially constructed and parochial.

One idea central to our inherited notions of sexuality is a mind-body dualism that dates back to Plato, one of the most influential philosophers in the western tradition. Farley takes seriously the idea that we interpret human experience in relation to both body and spirit (or mind or soul—she takes these as synonymous), and that the distinction, but not separation, of body and spirit in our conception of ourselves is important to maintain. She astutely observes that “the trouble with theories and beliefs that emphasize a distinction between soul and body is that dualisms breed hierarchies,” yet also notes that theories that eliminate any distinction between mind and body obfuscate “the dramas of human freedom, and the experiences of personal dividedness, diminishment, and death” (113-14). At the same time, while Farley is sympathetic to feminist theorists like Judith Butler who claim that our conceptions and experiences of our bodies are culturally and socially constructed, she also affirms other feminists’ insistance on univeral bodily capabilities and needs (for example, Martha Nussbaum). Her considered view is that we humans are “embodied spirits, inspirited bodies,” by which she means that our bodies and spirits are one—differentiated as aspects of our personhood, “but unified in a way that they are neither mere parts of one whole nor reducible one to the other” (117).

Beyond this insistence on unity in difference, Farley also advocates the idea of human embodiment as “transcendent” embodiment. We humans, she claims, are self-transcendent in that we can be more than we are at any one point in time, and in two ways: by our free choice and by “active and inspirited relationships to others” (128). These two means of transcendence play, as we will see, a crucial role in her sexual ethic. In a Christian idiom, she concludes that each human person, as created and sustained by a God who offers in Jesus Christ an unlimited future, “has the possibility of and the call to a destiny of relation and wholeness as embodied spirit, inspirited body” (131). After all, “God destines the human person for ultimate and utter union with God and other human persons in God,” fully realized in “an ultimate bodily, inspirited, resurrection of those who have died” (132).

At this point in Just Love, Farley makes a constructive turn to develop her framework for Christian sexual ethics. To do so, she draws on yet modifies the well-known Methodist “quadrilateral” for theological reflection; her sources are therefore scripture, tradition, secular disciplines of knowledge (instead of reason, as John Wesley would have it; reason, Farley notes, is involved in each of the three other sources, when the idea behind Wesley’s “reason” is what we can know outside special revelation), and contemporary experience. Key to her use of all four sources is the idea that each, in and of itself, is limited and hence one should “look for their coalescence wherever possible” (183). Of note in her discussion of these sources is her view, resonant with Pope Benedict XVI’s, that tradition does not mean simply what has always, or for centuries, been taught or practiced; “if the rationales behind longstanding beliefs and practices are no longer persuasive in the context of the tradition as a whole, then the practices and beliefs will be challenged, and they may need to change,” she insists (187).

Farley is also aware of the problems and limits of contemporary experience as a source that can inform sexual ethics. “Experience is a given, providing data to be interpreted,” she writes, “but it is also something that is already interpreted, its content shaped by previous understandings in a context of multiple influences” (190). She therefore offers several criteria for appeals to experience in moral discernment—coherence with established moral norms, mutual illumination when measured with other sources of moral knowledge, harmful or helpful consequences of interpretations of experience, and confirmation in a community of discernment, to name just a few—and ultimately concludes that “experience is a necessary but not sufficient source for sexual ethics” (194). Finally, Farley correctly reminds us that experience is in some sense authoritative in relation to each of the three other sources as well. While, of course, experience is not the final arbiter of conflicts between sources, “surely there is a sense in which every religious tradition has power only insofar . . . as it helps to make sense of the whole of human life, to give meaning to human tragedy and horizons to human hope” (195).

Crucial to Farley’s constructive conception of just love is to establish a connection between sexuality and justice, and hence to move sexuality out of the realm of “taboo morality” and into the realm of justice. To make sense of this shift in moral focus, Farley mobilizes Paul Ricoeur’s identification of three “moments” in the evolution of how western culture has symbolized the experience of evil, set forth in his Symbolism of Evil. The first moment is “defilement” which, as a symbol, denotes an experience of evil as “pre-ethical, irrational, [and] quasi-material” in that it leaves a “symbolic stain. One feels ‘dirty.’” Importantly, defilement “resists reflection” because it arises from the breach of a taboo, and taboos neither need nor allow reflective rationales. “The point is simply that they are not to be broken—on pain of punishment,” Farley observes (175). The second moment is “sin,” which in its symbolic form refers to an experience of evil derived from the violation of a personal bond or relationship. “Guilt” is the final moment and “the subjective side of sin”; it arises from “a rupture in relationship [as] the result of my freedom” (176). With this scheme in place, Farley claims that, unfortunately, our conceptions of sexuality “remain immersed in the economy of defilement,” on account of which most sexual ethics resist rational reflection and critique (177). If Farley is correct (and I think she is), this ironically means that sexual ethics typically resides in the pre-ethical realm of taboo in our experience of evil. In Just Love, Farley strives to move the ethics of sex outside this pre-ethical realm into the fully realized ethical realm of justice, a conceptual domain which presupposes the normative import of our freedom and relationality—i.e. those means of self-transcendence that necessarily accompany our nature as embodied spirits.

To initiate this transition from the pre-ethical to the ethical, Farley examines how to understand the concept of love. At a descriptive level, Farley defines love as “simultaneously an affective response, an affective way of being in union, and an affective affirmation of what is loved” (168). Love, then, has both passive and active dimensions and is inherently relational. Importantly, Farley stresses that while love is both passive and active, in the first instance it is receptive. When we love, “it is because the other somehow awakens in us a response” (169). This descriptive definition of love informs Farley’s normative conception as well. If love is an affective response to, union with, and affirmation of the beloved, then the norm for a true and just love is “the concrete reality of the beloved,” which most immediately means that love should arise from an accurate and truthful conception of what is loved and, in addition, must affirm the beloved so as not to miss the “actuality and potentialities of the one who is loved” (200, 198). Yet Farley also believes that for love to be true it must be true to both the lover and the nature of the relationship between lover and beloved. With respect to the former, she explains that “a love will not be true or just if there is an affirmation of the beloved that involves destruction of the one who loves,” and with respect to the latter, she notes that relationships “are part of our reality,” and while love can constitute and transform relationships, it cannot make them be whatever we want them to be (200-1). True and just love must therefore reflect each of these norms, yet these norms in and of themselves are not sufficient to establish a robust sexual ethic. For that, Farley insists we need a more specific conception of justice and its attendant norms.

Farley starts with the formal, classical concept of justice: to render each their due. From here, she does not wade into the vast philosophical literature on theories of justice but translates this formal concept into what she calls a “basic formal ethical principle: Persons and groups of persons ought to be affirmed according to their concrete reality, actual and potential,” a principle which reflects the primary norm of true and just love. Farley then notes that if the formal principle for justice in love is “to love in accord with the concrete reality of persons, then material principles of justice will depend on our interpretation of the realities of persons—their needs, capacities, relational claims, vulnerabilities, possibilities” (209, my emphasis). What does this reality consist of? Characteristically, she offers a multifaceted conception of personhood that stresses humans’ embodied, spirited, free, and relational natures; in addition, persons have particular histories as situated within social, political, economic, and cultural contexts, exist in relation to institutions, have positive potentiality for development, are vulnerable to diminishment, and are unique even as they participate in a common humanity. Within this rich definition of personhood, Farley hones in on persons’ capacity for free choice and relationship and identifies autonomy and relationality as equiprimordial features of human personhood that obligate persons in relation to themselves and other people. “Autonomy and relationality in particular are ‘obligating features,’” Farley explains, “because they ground an obligation to respect persons as ends in themselves and forbid, therefore, the use of persons as mere means” (212). As obligating features of human personhood, autonomy and relationality provide the content for the basic norms of a sexual ethic.

Farley identifies seven norms that derive from autonomy and relationality. In brief, they are: do no unjust harm; free consent of partners; mutuality; equality; commitment; fruitfulness; and social justice. Do no unjust harm and social justice are rooted in both autonomy and relationality, for it is because persons are persons (i.e. that their personhood has these features) that they deserve our respect and hence can never be used as mere means; free consent of partners is rooted specifically in autonomy, since it concerns the right to determine one’s own actions and relationships in the sexual sphere of one’s life; and mutuality, equality, commitment, and fruitfulness are rooted specifically in relationality, since each implicates the relational nature of sexuality. Most of the norms Farley proposes—namely, do no unjust harm, free consent, mutuality, and equality—are more or less self-explanatory, but commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice deserve special attention.

Commitment is a crucial norm in Farley’s sexual ethic that differentiates it from perhaps other, explicitly secular sexual ethics. While she concedes that “brief [sexual] encounters open a lover to relation, they cannot mediate the kind of union . . . for which human relationality offers the potential,” and she worries that the pursuit of multiple sexual relations for the sake of one’s pleasure risks the potential that one uses others as mere means to one’s own ends (225). She concludes that, “if our concerns are for the wholeness of the human person,” then commitment is a critical norm for a Christian sexual ethic (226). Fruitfulness is another important norm for Farley, and she means for it to denote more than the need for sexual relations to produce children. Sex need not be procreative, but it should nevertheless issue in new forms of life and opportunities for connection, nourish other relationships in one’s life, inform the work lives of the partners in relation, or even help them raise others’ children. In short, when sex actualizes the potentiality of lovers, then it is fruitful. Finally, social justice, another key norm for Farley, refers to the kind of justice all persons in a community must affirm for its members as sexual creatures. No matter one’s sexuality, gender, relationship status, age, or able-bodiedness, one has “claims to respect from the Christian community as well as the wider society” (228). Social justice as it concerns our sexual natures therefore seeks to redress, for example, gender inequality, sexual and domestic violence, racial violence that presupposes false sexual stereotypes, and “the myths and doctrines of religious and cultural traditions that reinforce gender bias and unjust constriction of gender roles” (230). Insofar as social justice as a norm in the context of sexual ethics implicates far more than justice between sexual partners, its scope is expansive, and Farley concedes that she cannot address all its concerns in Just Love. Her point, rather, is that such concerns fall within the realm of “an adequate human and Christian sexual ethic” (ibid.).

In the final part of the book, Farley mobilizes this framework for a just sexual ethic to draw conclusions about marraige, same-sex relationships, and divorce, many of which drew the ire of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which ultimately issued a notification on Just Love that stated the book “is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church” and, consequently, “cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.” To be sure, Farley contests the standard Catholic view, rooted in natural law morality, that sex must be ordered toward procreation for it to be justified; she also rejects the idea, advanced by Pope John Paul II, that essentialized masculine and feminine identities necessarily “complement” each other, either naturally (i.e. heterogenitcally or reproductively) or ontologically. Such positions, Farley maintains, fail to account for the polyvalent meaning of sexuality and its multiple ends in just, committed relationships, just as they reinscribe fixed gender identities and thus promote oppressive gender stereotypes. Of note is Farley’s own response to the notification: “I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.” However committed Catholics adjudicate this conflict between Farley’s sexual ethic and the Roman Catholic Church’s condemnation of it, it is clear that Farley offers Christians today with a philosophically robust and multifaceted framework for just love that takes seriously both Christian and non-Christian sources of moral knowledge. It is a major achievement in Christian ethics.

[pcalu · Rating 1 out of 5]

Farley gives an interesting historical overview of sexual ethics. But that's where the interesting part ends.

As soon as she starts developing her own sexual ethics, her bias is extremely clear.

She reads Scripture and theology only as far as it supports her theory and ignores the rest. Just one example will serve.

On p. 185-186 she uses the story of the adulterous woman. She claims that Jesus "makes only one point: we are all sinners whose stones are cast at our own great peril. To the woman he says, "Has no one condemned you?... Neither will I condemn you" (John 8:10-11). The whole of the biblical witness must be probed."

The last phrase is particularly cynical, as we all know that Farley is leaving out a crucial bit. She refers to verse 11, but only quotes it partially. The crucial bit is ignored: “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

This is exemplary for the whole book. Crucial parts are left out, only because they would go against her theory. It is biased and bad research, rightly condemned by the Vatican.

[Caleb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sister Farley really did produce a classic that will have to be reckoned with generations to come. It had a lot of academic archaeology, in order to assure its readers its well considered proposals, and it had very consistent philosophical arguments for proposing her framework for sexual ethics. However while she did an excellent job with every other word in the title of her book, it was quite short on its 'christian' character. It did seem that she wanted to propose a framework that Christians and secular people would embrace equaling- it is not that her ethic could not be considered 'Christian' only that she did not make it clear that it was, or how it would work within an explicitly theological or biblical framework, as opposed to a philosophical ethics framework. Furthermore, I was really hoping she would take to task the Roman Catholic position MORE than she did

[Quinn Parman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well written book, but it is limited in at least two ways. The first is no fault of the author, and that is simply that much of her subject matter, which would have been very cutting edge when the book was written, is simply not central to the ongoing questions around sexual ethics. This isn’t true of every topic she writes about, of course.

The second issue, and this one problematizes the whole argument for me, is that I’m not convinced there’s anything uniquely Christian in what she writes. And, of course, one need not be a Christian to write powerfully about sexual ethics. But, if the author is trying to write from a Christian perspective, which she claims to be, I do wish the book would’ve touched more deeply on Christian theology and the differences it might make to a contemporary ethic of sex.

Still, a good book that I would be happy to recommend.

[Emma Di Pace · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Farley’s history of sexual ethics and how it was influenced over the years to be particularly interesting, as well as the history of the institution of marriage. Her “Norma for Just Sex” notable as well. Small section on heteronormativity and same-sex marriage. This book was written on 2006–before same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states. Would be interested to hear if Farley has expanded on this topic since then. She’s a badass.

[Zach Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extremely helpful tool that has expanded my language around all things sex and sexuality. More importantly, this book reminded me that the questions I am willing to ask about sexuality and traditional, authoritative voices about this complicated subject are much more important than the answers that provide me safety. Sexuality will always be complex. This book intentionally drives that point home.

[Ellen · Rating 5 out of 5]

much less academic than I expected, though it certainly is highly researched. As she recommends in her intro, it is perfectly acceptable to skip the first few chapters and jump to the overview of the framework. I did that and then went back to the earlier chapters for the historical overview and lit review, which certainly are a drier read.

[Tynan Brooks]

Didn't go far enough, and drew too little on Scripture, imo. Her basic framework of sexual ethics is sound, but she spends too much time on side questions and not enough on the implications of her ideas and their place in Christian ethics more broadly.

[Steven Fouse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Margaret A. Farley is an academic look at the question of what a Christian sexual ethic might look like. Ultimately for Farley, a sound sexual ethic, both human and Christian, depends on justice. Farely takes great care in laying out her background for such a statement, and after laying it out, gives a few examples on how and why such a sexual ethic works.

In Chapter 1, "Opening the Questions," Farley introduces the topic of sexual ethics, and why we now sit at a convoluted time in the question. She gives the briefest of overviews of philosophical and theological approaches to the ethics of sexuality, and explains why further work is still needed.

In Chapter 2, "The Questions and their Past," Farley discusses the history of the interpretation of human sexuality, highlighting Michel Foucault and Catherine MacKinnon. She also delves into the history of sexual ethics in the West, including the influences of Greece and Rome, Judaism, and early Christian traditions. Farley concludes the chapter with the contributions of secular advances of philosophy and medicine on the subject at hand.

Chapter 3, "Difficult Crossings: Diverse Traditions," reads like a primer on the issue of sexual ethics in religious studies. This chapter gives an overview of sexual ethics in light of colonialism and postcolonialism, the pre-modern islands of the South Seas, African cultures, the Kamasutra and Hinduism, and Islam. Farley discusses the diversity found between and among these traditions and worldviews and their contributions to the question of sexual ethics.

In Chapter 4, "Sexuality and Its Meanings," Farley discusses the concepts of the body, gender and its construction, and the meaning of sexuality in light of the three previous chapters. Any student of religion who is interested in embodiment or gender studies would find helpful resources and reflections in this chapter, particularly in light of questions of sexuality.

With the groundwork completed, Farley begins outlining her sexual ethic in Chapter 5, "Just Love and Just Sex: Preliminary Considerations." Here Farley underscores the importance of justice in her sexual ethic, as well as an examination of sources of Christian ethics, found in the Wesleyan quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, secular disciplines of knowledge (reason), and contemporary experience. Farley concludes the chapter with an examination of the role of love in an ethical framework of sexual justice.

Farley finally delineates her sexual ethic of justice in Chapter 6, "Framework for Sexual Ethic: Just Sex." After reiterating the importance and foundation of justice, Farley describes her seven-part ethic: 1) Do No Unjust Harm, which includes a discussion of various types of harm and how and why this is not a sufficient ethic in and of itself; 2) Free Consent, which includes the importance of privacy, truth-telling, and promise-keeping; 3) Mutuality, which describes the relationality of sex and the importance of mutual desire, action, and response; 4) Equality, which includes discussion of power in relationships and how it can be grossly unequal; 5) Commitment, which describes how and why sustaining sexual desire through commitment is more ethical than sustaining sexual desire through new and varied sexual partners; 6) Fruitfulness, which extends beyond procreation and includes family-making and interpersonal love; and 7) Social Justice, which includes respecting persons as ends in themselves, as well as how to live in the midst of sexual and gender injustice. Farley then turns to special questions of this ethic's applicability to teenagers, to masturbation, and to negative potentials of sex.

The final chapter, "Patters of Relationship: Contexts for Just Love," offers and application of Farley's sexual ethic to marriage and family, to same-sex relationships, and to divorce and remarriage. Each of these sections could easily be a chapter unto themselves and offer a thorough examination of the questions, history, and application of the sexual ethic of justice to the questions raised.

Farley provides a thorough, rigorously researched ethic of human sexuality in Just Love. While I would have enjoyed seeing more application of the ethic to more diverse sexual questions including parental instruction of children regarding sexual ethics, inter-cultural or inter-racial sex and marriage, and sex between persons of greatly-differing age, such discussions are easily possible with Farley's introduction to the subject and her thoughtful ethic. Justice as a foundation for sexual ethics works well and provides a framework with which to evaluate and answer any questions of sexuality that arise.

Students of ethics and religion will find a lot to love and consider in Farley's work. Those without a foundation in ethics or the academic study of religion may be overwhelmed by the material contained in this work. However, if you are looking for just one work that could serve as a foundation for a personal sexual ethic or an introduction to sexual ethics on an academic level, I would submit Farley's work as a contribution that will not lead you astray.

[Josh Sweeney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every high school student and above should read this book

[Angel · Rating 1 out of 5]

NO...No...no

I will not be taking any advice from this lol

Glazed through it because of school propaganda

[Lenhardt Stevens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Under delivered on the promise of a framework for Christian sexual ethics. I have even less an idea of what Christian sexual ethics are after reading this book.

[Elizabeth Breen]

I’m going to be pondering this one for a while folks. Very lovely throughout, particularly in its discussion of just love. Her sexual ethic probably doesn’t go far enough but pretty good for 2008.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5– good resource! A bit long and repetitive.

[Jazmine Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book revealed a vocabulary and grammar I suspected existed—or at least longed for to exist—for hospitable Christian sexual ethics but couldn’t find. In fact, it offered more concrete guidance than I had expected. I read it in bits and pieces as particular sections made themselves meaningful to the way my questions morphed. It proved a satisfying way to let Farley answer. Even after finishing, details I missed or quickly forgot often send me back to review. For example, I was trying to remember what Farley says of children in a just relationship: she speaks to children as a consequence of sexual relationship and briefly mentions children in the situation of divorce and remarriage, but doesn’t address the just parental love due existing children or others in one’s care that can add complicating dimensions to or even compete with a one-on-one relationship. My interest comes from observing multiple remarriages where the children are highly uncomfortable with the change and find themselves resentful, feeling abandoned, etc: i.e. feeling unjustly treated. Perhaps someone has written on this elsewhere, but Farley’s ethics make her someone I would specifically want to hear more from on the topic based on the beautiful setup she provides in this book. But even if I can’t find direct answers to my newest questions, every review of Just Love has me better absorbing the hospitality Farley offers to the myriad experiences humans have of just love, and sharpening discernment for when love has lost its justice.

[Ruairí Meyler]

My book review for Just love A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics written by Margaret Farley


In this book, Margaret Farley examines historical and contemporary attitudes and theories to sex with an aim to developing a sexual ethic for our time.



The writing by Margaret Farley is informative nuanced and insightful, as she discusses everything you wanted to know about sex and love but were too afraid to ask. Tracing the history of sex and sexual Theory from the Greeks and Romans to Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault. (Who was a French post-modern philosopher and the first to pen a history of sexuality and along with Freud laid the foundations for sexual theory.) In addition to The Kama Sutra and the sexual practices of Africa and the Polynesian Islands. While also shedding light on the sexual attitudes and insights of the three major monotheistic religions Judaism Christianity and Islam by examining these traditions Margaret Farley gives us insight into how our modern attitudes regarding sex love and relationships have been formed.

However if I have one criticism of the book it is that she doesn't discuss the tradition which in my opinion has had the most impact on modern attitudes to love and sex that being romanticism however despite this oversight the traditions and theories she does discuss our intriguing and important furthermore she uses the insights gained from these various traditions and disciplines to craft a new sexual ethic for contemporary Times founded upon the principle of justice.

In conclusion this is a dense yet immensely informative and thought provoking look at sex love and relationships that looks back to the past in order to confront controversies and conundrums surrounding sex sexuality love and relationships in the present, in the process uncovering the roots of our preconceptions and making us think differently about sex love and relationships, check it out now if you haven't already.