(Lepanto Institute) — The dissident Association of United States Catholic Priests (AUSCP) is once again holding its Annual Assembly, this year in San Antonio, Texas, between June 23-26. The theme of this year’s assembly is Sex and Spirituality Pastoral Considerations. True to form, the AUSCP, while claiming to be “in good standing in dioceses and religious communities,” has invited a professor of theology whose most significant work was condemned by the USCCB to keynote its assembly.
This is not at all surprising. As the Lepanto Institute has been meticulously documenting since 2017, and as further evidence confirms, the AUSCP is notorious for its relentless promotion of heterodox positions, including:
Dr. Todd Salzman is a Catholic theologian and professor from Creighton University who often works in collaboration with Dr. Michael G. Lawler, also from Creighton. Their work, particularly the book The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology, as well as numerous articles published by outlets like the National Catholic Reporter, oppose settled Church teaching on sexual morality such as contraception and homosexual sexual acts.
Salzman attempts to skirt the Church’s longstanding and definitive teaching that there is an objective body of truth rooted in both the natural law and Sacred Tradition by asserting that while objective truth exists, it is perceived from different “perspectives.” These perspectives on objective truth can lead to evolution and changes in what was established doctrine. This framework is known as Perspectivism, and Salzman, along with Lawler claim that this approach can account for a “plurality of Catholic ethical methods while maintaining an objectivist metaethic.” To distinguish their perspectivism from outright relativism, they claim that while relativism “rejects all objective ethical truth,” perspectivism merely “acknowledges that there is objective ethical truth, albeit partial.”
Boiling it down, Salzman’s work proposes a complete demolition of traditional Catholic sexual morality in lieu of a new morality created by the “perspective” of modern sensibilities and science. For example, In May of 2018, Salzman and Lawler wrote an article for the National Catholic Reporter titled “The end of the affair? ‘Humanae Vitae’ at 50” that seeks to use the vague perspective of “human experience” to trash traditional Catholic teaching on contraception. While discussing “cultural experience,” Salzman and Lawler use both the experience of poverty and patriarchal societies to undercut traditional Church teaching. First from poverty:
“More than 20,000 people die every day because of extreme poverty. Artificial contraception could enable for them the good of life, such an important value in African culture, not attack it as some traditionalist theologians claim.” [emphasis added]
And patriarchal societies:
“In these cultures, the husband is the unquestioned authority in the marriage, and the fundamental equality required to practice NFP is absent. In these experiential contexts, it can be oppressive for the church to prescribe an approach to regulating birth that is countercultural and creates an undue burden for women. Given the varied cultural and experiential contexts of marital relationships throughout the world, neither social nor sexual norms can be “one size fits all.” Responsible parenthood must be adapted to specific cultural contexts. It is irresponsible and oppressive to teach an absolute ethical norm that can actually damage human dignity within marital relationships, especially the dignity of women.” [emphasis added]
Following this, Salzman and Lawler attack Church teaching from what they term “scientific experience:”
If contraception can be used to treat a woman’s physical disease, why can it not also be used to treat the affective strain an unplanned pregnancy places on women at the prospect of a child being born into poverty and early death? Why can it not be used to prevent the spread of AIDS among women for whom, for physical, cultural or familial reasons, the use of NFP is not possible? Women account for some 50 percent of AIDS infection throughout the world and for some 60 percent of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa. The refusal to adequately address this issue through a revised moral norm results from the type of reasoning that ignores experience and has warranted the accusation of physicalism against magisterial teaching. [emphasis added]
Finally, Salzman and Lawler attack Church teaching using what they term “theological experience,” or a warped understanding of Sensus Fidei and the reception by Catholics:
The issue, we argue, is not whether or not people have to have reasons for accepting Paul VI’s decision on contraception. The issue is that, when there is no valid reason for accepting his precept, that precept ought never to be an ethical norm. We further argue that 50 years of Humanae Vitae’s growing non-reception is a more than sufficient reason to consider a revision of its contraceptive norm. [emphasis added]
In a more recent article (Feb. 2023) for the National Catholic Reporter, Salzman and Lawler advance the perspective of “relationship” as an ethical consideration on par with established doctrine as a way of justifying homosexual sex acts. Using Perspectivism, Salzman and Lawler broaden the norm of a sexual act needing to be “open to life” to include “the life of their personal unions” (or relationship) rather than the doctrinal understanding of being open to biological conception:
In relational terms, however, permanently infertile heterosexual and same-sex couples are capable of openness to the transmission of life, the life of their personal unions rather than the life of a new biological being. [emphasis added]
Salzman and Lawler go on to nail home the point that if their radical ideas are accepted, it would obliterate the entire edifice of Catholic sexual morality:
Once magisterial teaching recognizes this incontrovertible scientific and experiential fact, the inseparability principle no longer holds, and the moral arguments based on this principle to prohibit contraceptive, homosexual and artificially reproductive acts crumble.
Di Blasi claims that it is essential “to spend some time to fix this debate so we can move forward.” We wholeheartedly agree that we need to fix this debate and move forward. We insist, however, that we must move forward in a way that recognizes the truth of an integrated Catholic sexual and social teaching, shaped by human experience and just and loving relationships, not by a discounted, fearful teaching that has no bearing or relevance for the faithful. [emphasis added]
Salzman and Lawler conclude with yet another declaration that defined doctrine on sexual morality (namely the unitive and procreative principles) has been proven false by “countless scholars” and that this now calls all Catholic sexual morality into doubt:
The foundational principle to justify absolute prohibition of contraception is the inseparability principle, which asserts “the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act,” in the words of Humanae Vitae.
If the inseparability principle is demonstrated to be false, which has indeed been demonstrated now by countless scholars using sound exegesis, science, experience and a proper reading of tradition, then the entire basis for defending other sexual norms crumbles. [emphasis added]
In fact, in October of 2016, Salzmann was one of 22 principle authors of the “Catholic Scholars’ Statement on the Ethics of Using Contraceptives,” published by the heretical Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.
Given the contents of this report, it should go without saying that every single author, co-author and signatory onto this statement should be immediately removed from any Catholic institution from which they are associated, condemned by their bishops, silenced and censured by the Church, and forbidden from receiving the Sacraments under Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
While the report asserts that abortifacient contraception should be avoided, it claims that it may be permissible to use abortifacient contraception if there is a “proportionate reason” for doing so. And persisting on the foundation of the false philosophy of proportionalism, the report argues that “using modern contraceptives has many proven benefits,” such as “increases in women’s education and contribution to the common good.”
Arrogantly, the report Salzmann helped produce concludes that:
“there are no grounds, either from the Bible or from nature, to support current Catholic teaching according to which each and every act of sexual intercourse has a procreative significance and finality, and that consequently using “artificial” contraceptives for the purposes of family planning is always wrong, or “intrinsically wrong” (HV §14).
On the contrary, the choice to use contraceptives for either family planning or prophylactic purposes can be a responsible and ethical decision and even, at times, an ethical imperative.”
But this wasn’t even the worst of it. Following this conclusion, the report recommends:
- “An official magisterial document should be published affirming that the use of non-abortifacient modern contraceptives for prophylactic purposes”
- “The Catholic magisterium seek the opinion of Christian theologians and experts” pertaining to the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives “for the purposes of family planning.”
- These same experts should also be permitted to assist in revising the Catholic condemnation of “masturbation, homosexual relationships, and in vitro fertilization.”
- An “official magisterial document should revoke the absolute ban on the use of ‘artificial’ contraceptives.”
- “National episcopal conferences should recommend that Catholic-run health-care facilities make modern non-abortifacient contraceptives available for both prophylactic and family planning purposes”
- “Acceptance of HV as a mark of orthodoxy should be removed from all selection procedures” for “teaching staff of Catholic academic institutions.”
The theological framework proposed and utilized by Salzman is not a novel development in Catholic thought but rather a retelling of Modernism, the “synthesis of all heresies” vigorously condemned by Pope St. Pius X at the beginning of the 20th century. An examination of St. Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu reveals striking parallels between the errors of the Modernists and the contemporary theories advanced by Salzman.
Pope St. Pius X identified several core errors of Modernism. Among these errors is Agnosticism, which, in the Modernist system, denied the capacity of human reason to attain certain knowledge of God or objective supernatural truth. Instead, religious truth was said to derive from subjective experience, a “feeling” or “vital immanence” welling up from the subconscious. Another key error is the Evolution of Dogma, the belief that the Church’s doctrines are not immutable truths revealed by God, but rather historically conditioned expressions that must “evolve” and adapt to the changing consciousness of humanity and the “intellectual, moral and social needs of today.” The decree Lamentabili Sane condemned specific propositions flowing from these errors, such as the claim that the Church’s Magisterium “cannot determine the genuine sense” of Sacred Scripture (Proposition 4) or that dogmas are merely “interpretations of religious facts acquired by human effort” (Proposition 22).
Salzman’s doctrines manifest these same Modernist propositions. His theory of perspectivism serves as a functional equivalent to Modernist agnosticism and immanentism. By asserting that objective moral truth is only ever “partial” and totally linked to individual, subjective viewpoints, Salzman effectively denies the full knowability and universal binding force of objective moral law. The significant emphasis he places on “experience” as a source of ethical knowledge directly mirrors the Modernist notion of “vital immanence,” where truth is sought not in objective revelation but in subjective consciousness.
Similarly, Salzman’s call for a “renewed Catholic ethic of human sexuality” and his contention that understandings of human sexuality are “historically and culturally conditioned” are clear expressions of the Modernist principle of the evolution of dogma. This implies that moral laws are not divinely established and immutable, but are subject to change and reinterpretation based on shifting human understanding and societal norms. This directly contradicts the Church’s teaching that moral principles rooted in divine and natural law are unchanging.
The insidious nature of Modernism, as St. Pius X warned, lies in its tendency to operate from within the Church, using Catholic terminology and structures while subtly subverting Catholic doctrine from its foundations. Salzman presents his theories as a “Catholic ethical method” and claims to be working “firmly within the Catholic tradition.” Yet, his conclusions represent a radical departure from, and indeed a contradiction of, that very tradition. This methodology is a hallmark of Modernist tactics: to redefine terms, reinterpret doctrines, and present heterodoxy under the guise of legitimate theological development.
Paragraph 18 of Pascendi aptly summarizes the methods of Salzman and Lawler:
In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers. [emphasis added]
In September 2010, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine issued a formal statement on Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler’s book, The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. According to the USCCB, it was prompted by earlier concerns, including a 2007 statement by Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha regarding articles by Salzman and Lawler. Identifying Salzman and Lawler’s argument for the “moral legitimacy of some homosexual acts,” Archbishop Curtiss declared their conclusion to be “in serious error, and cannot be considered authentic Catholic teaching.” Similarly, the Committee on Doctrine found that the book not only contained this same erroneous conclusion but, by “applying a deficient theological methodology,” also reached “erroneous conclusions on a whole range of issues, including the morality of pre-marital sex, contraception, and artificial insemination”
The USCCB Committee’s critique was unambiguous and severe. It stated that the authors of The Sexual Person propose not minor revisions but a wholesale rejection of Catholic sexual ethics, deeming it “obsolete and inadequate.” The Committee declared:
“neither the methodology of The Sexual Person nor the conclusions that depart from authoritative Church teaching constitute authentic expressions of Catholic theology. Moreover, such conclusions, clearly in contradiction to the authentic teaching of the Church, cannot provide a true norm for moral action and in fact are harmful to one’s moral and spiritual life“. [emphasis added]
The Committee found the book’s methodology “unsound and incompatible with the Catholic tradition,” particularly criticizing its treatment of Scripture as “so historically conditioned that they have no relevance for subsequent ages” and its effective denial of natural law by reducing it to “socially constructed interpretations of nature.” They also pointed to a “an epistemology distorted by skepticism” and a “dualistic view of the human person” that treats the body as merely an instrument of the spirit.
Despite this clear condemnation from a committee of their own national episcopal conference, the AUSCP not only features Todd Salzman as a speaker but explicitly promotes The Sexual Person in its 2025 Assembly announcement, praising its intent to “examine and challenge” the foundational principles of Catholic sexual morality and endorsing its call to “emphasize relationships, not acts, and recognize Christianity’s historically and culturally conditioned understanding of human sexuality”. This action directly contradicts the USCCB Committee on Doctrine’s assessment that the book’s conclusions are “harmful to one’s moral and spiritual life.”
The AUSCP’s claim to be an organization “in good standing with the Catholic Church” appears hollow, if not deceitful, when contrasted with its open promotion of theological work officially deemed wrong and spiritually dangerous by the USCCB’s own doctrinal body. If “good standing” implies fidelity to the Church’s authentic teaching and respect for the legitimate teaching authority of the bishops, then the AUSCP’s actions regarding Salzman and his work set this claim in serious jeopardy.
This decision by the AUSCP to provide a prominent platform for Todd Salzman at their annual assembly is a matter of grave scandal. It lends undue credibility to heretical doctrines, fosters confusion among its priests and the faithful, and promotes division within the Body of Christ. Far from being a “pastoral” initiative, it is an act of profound pastoral evil and disobedience, potentially leading astray those priests who look to the AUSCP for guidance and support.
Considering this flagrant promotion of teachings condemned by the U.S. bishops, it is well past time that the bishops formally investigate the AUSCP. We’ve issued dozens of reports on how this organization of priests, who claim to be “in good standing with the Church,” are actively undermining the Church’s teaching and causing grave harm to the faithful. No priest in any diocese should be allowed to join, attend, partner with, or otherwise associate with the AUSCP, which is pretending to be a group of faithful shepherds when in fact they seek the complete gutting of Holy Mother Church.
Republished with permission from the Lepanto Institute.
