Charles Curran, martyr for the life-destroying gospel of the "modern life"

I have a big deadline Monday, am behind on that and other projects, but I simply can't let this one pass by: A Re-Declaration of Victim Status by Charles Curran, titled, "Banned By the Pope," and written for Newsweak's "My Turn" column. Tssk, tssk; fisk, fisk:

I knew that the letter—approved by Pope John Paul II and issued by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—was unlikely to be good news.

Because, for one thing, Curran had been openly undermining, scoffing at, rejecting, and attacking key moral teachings of the Church since the mid-1960s. (Quick note: the Summer 2009 issue of Nova et Vetera has a great essay, "The Cultural and Ecclesial Situation 1964 to 1967: Paving the Way for Dissent From Church Teaching on Contraception", by Dr. William E. May, which provides a lot of helpful information and context.) Note how long the process of evaluating and dealing with dissenters takes—a loooong time. And yet the common (mis)perception is that "the Vatican" or the CDF deals in a knee-jerk, off-the-cuff, reactionary manner. False. Completely false. This priest was publicly rejecting the Church's moral teachings for almost twenty years before he was finally stripped of his ability to teach theology at a Catholic school.

It was 1986, and for the previous seven years, Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—the office charged with safeguarding official theology—had been investigating my work.

Seven. Years. That's. A. Long. Time. See point above.

As a professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., I lectured and wrote about traditional church teachings.

"About." Well, how to say this? It's a rather meaningless word in this case; in fact, it's something of a weasel word. As in: Arius spoke and sang about the Logos. Nestorius wrote and spoke about the Theotokos. Hans Küng has written volumes and volumes about Christianity. What Curran doesn't make clear here is that as far back as 1966 or 1967 he was already contradicting Church teaching on contraception. A sympathetic (to Curran) September/October 1989 article in Academe (PDF format) states:

In articles and in his first book, Christian Morality Today, published in 1966, Professor Curran established himself as a scholar who subjected accepted views, including noninfallible teachings of the Church, to careful scrutiny and did not hesitate to publicize his conclusions. An interest in sexual ethics led him specifically to dissenting views on such subjects as abortion, birth control, and homosexuality.

TIME magazine reported in an April 1967 article: "Curran had been fired by the trustees, without a hearing, largely because of his unconventional teaching on doctrinal issues — most notably, approval of birth control." Curran, you see, had been fired by Catholic University of America for holding and teaching positions directly contrary to clear Church teaching. But, it being the late 1960s, all it took were some student protests and threats, and CUA caved. (Hey, it was all the rage back then.) And so Curran continued to lecture and teach "about" traditional Church teachings. And:

But I also pointed out areas where I believed Catholicism and modern life were misaligned, including Rome’s opposition to birth control for married couples; its stance on homosexuality, divorce, and remarriage; and the status of women in the church.

Hmmm. "Misaligned." That's a nifty way of putting it. First, a weasel word. Now a slithery word. But note what Curran is saying, plain as day: he, as a young Catholic priest (he was 33 in 1967), was solidly and publicly on the side of "modern life" over against Catholicism and Rome. He was opposed to the Church's teaching on homosexuality, divorce, contraceptives, women's ordination, masturbation, euthanasia, and sterilization (goodness, what's left??). And so he as ever been.

The Vatican had finally had enough. “One who dissents from the Magisterium as you do,” the letter said, “is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology.”

Despite that rebuke, I remain a committed Catholic, a priest in good standing, and a professor of Catholic theology (albeit at a Methodist institution).

I bet good money that a Methodist would do a better job of accurately and fairly teaching Catholic theology than Curran, but I digress. Curran, who is something of an American Hans Küng (a dissenter who whines in the press, mocks or openly attacks the pope and Church teaching, but insists on being a "Catholic theologian" despite denying nearly every point of Catholic doctrine), likes to have it both ways, as most dissenters do. He wants to be recognized and known for rejecting the Church, but then complains that he is a victim, a martyr, when the Church says, "Uh, we have a problem..." He's been employing this stunt routine for over forty years, a routine that Jeremy Lott reported about in the October 2006 issue of Catholic World Report:

In response to the [1986] Vatican condemnation, [Curran] insisted to reporters that "I neither denied nor disagreed with the core elements of the Catholic faith." Rather, he had "dissented from noninfallible church teachings on a few moral issues . . . far removed from the core beliefs of the Catholic faith."

So what, exactly, were all those peripheral issues that the Vatican was making such a fuss about? "I was asked to reconsider and retract my positions on contraception and sterilization, abortion and euthanasia, masturbation, premarital sexuality, and the indissolubility of marriage," he writes. In other words, by the mid-1980s, he had come to disagree with the Vatican on pretty much every moral issue in the catechism.

And this from a man who had, as Lott notes, "wrote, edited, contributed to, or was the subject of Dissent in and for the Church, The Responsibility of Dissent, Dissent in the Church, Faithful Dissent, Vatican Authority and American Catholic Dissent, and now we have Loyal Dissent.  The subtitle is 'Memoir of a Catholic Theologian.'" Curran, in other words, is not only a one-trick pony, he is the poster boy for Catholics who want to be "Catholic" without actually being Catholic (the ponies and the posers go well together, actually). And, of course, he is constantly trying to justify his legless position:

I also continue to care deeply about the church, which I believe is facing a crisis that predates the sex-abuse scandal of recent years. Today, about a third of people who were raised Catholic have left the church; no other major religion in the United States has experienced a larger net loss in followers in the last 30 years.

Ah, the last thirty years. Say, isn't that the same era during which the many wonders and joys of "modern life" finally came to full fruition, with the sexual revolution in bloom, contraceptives as common as candy, divorce rates skyrocketing, cohabitation likewise, etc., etc., and so forth? What, then, is Curran's point? Is he suggesting that if the Church had embraced and endorsed divorce, contraceptives, premarital sex, abortion, et al, that those Catholics would not have left the Church/stopped going to Mass? You have to either be smoking crack or be a full-blown, hyper-committed believer in The Glories of Modern Life to believe such rot. You either have to be quite stupid or quite arrogant to go for that line of argumentation:

Many of the issues that troubled me decades ago have contributed to this decline. Some, like those related to contraception, homosexuality, and family life, are considered matters of divine or natural law—the will of God—and, therefore, are immutable. I disagree, and I’m not alone, but we have been unable to persuade the church to make changes.

Arrogant it is.

Other matters are considered a product of human law, which is alterable if the church thinks that doing so is in its best interest. The vow of priestly celibacy is one such statute: none, I believe, would be easier to change or, quite possibly, is more important to the short-term health of the church.

Because, of course, what motivates Curran is his love for the Church—the same Church whose consistent and credible teachings on sexuality and morality he has spent his entire adult life rejecting, undermining, and dismissing. Please. This is like a five-time divorcee explaining, with nary a hint of irony or cynicism, that he not only loves the institution of marriage, he is a completely devoted husband who is so in love with wife #5. Spare us.

Lifting the ban might help address the pedophilia crisis—which, at least in the popular mind, was caused in part by the frustrations of celibacy.

Is that...an argument?

More important, it would reverse a damaging shortage of clergy. Between 1975 and today, the number of Catholic priests in the United States has slid from nearly 60,000 to about 40,000. Protestant churches, which allow their minsters to have families, have suffered no such struggles. I can only conclude that celibacy laws are to blame.

Right. And the rapid rise of the divorce rate from the late 1960s into the mid-1970s wouldn't have happened if all of those darned marriage laws hadn't made spouses feel so constricted, misunderstood, tied down, and otherwise obligated to fulfill their marriage vows. Why has divorce increased so much in the past forty years? I can only conclude that marriage laws were to blame!

The shortage has created related problems. For example, the church has tried to make up for the shortfall by using foreign priests. Without strong English skills or a knowledge of American culture, however, some of these substitutes struggle to connect with their followers.

Which is completely different from having an American priest who rejects most or all of Catholic teaching trying to pastor a parish where the majority of the parishioners accept and adhere to Catholic teaching. Right? Besides, this sounds more than a little xenophobic, even rather racist, doesn't it?

Some parishes are closing because no one can be found to lead them, while others remain open but no longer offer the eucharistic liturgy—the heart of Catholic faith and life—because there’s no priest to preside at it.

Again, Curran's concern for the health of the Catholic Church is so...unbelievable. It's like the aforementioned divorcee complaining that married couples just don't get enough quality time together because of all the obligations that come with marriage and family life. Perhaps Curran hasn't figured out that when the Catholic laity see priests denounce or disregard Church teaching and thumb their noses at the pope and the Magisterium, they get the message: "Do whatever you want. The Church has no meaningful or real authority. Why bother being here if it isn't true?" Need I point out that many Catholics have gotten that message over the past forty years and have acted on it?

(Catholic bishops have had to devise alternative services for those communities.) In essence, by mandating celibacy, the church contributes to a dilution of Catholicism.

Because, as everyone knows, clerical celibacy has been dragging down the Church for centuries! Of course, if celibacy were the real problem, the Church would have gone away in the early medieval era, or earlier. Curran continues to implicitly argue that the problem is that the Church hasn't embraced "modern life" enough, when a big part of the problem is that many Catholics have, in fact, embraced "modern life" with life-killing gusto over the past several decades.

Now, I’m not wholly at peace with would-be reformers placing all the emphasis on the celibacy issue.

Oh man, I just spewed coffee all over my computer. (Not really, but close.) Well, if anyone knows something about "would-be reformers," it would be Curran. Would-be, has-been, and who-cares?, all rolled into one.

Women, whom the church treats as second-class citizens, are hurting most today;

Yes, yawn. Which is why approximately 85% of those working for the Catholic Church in the U.S. are women. (Which is not, by the way, a criticism, just a factual observation.) Oh, wait, I think he's referring to priestettes:

changing the laws that forbid male clergy from marrying will do nothing to speed women’s path to the priesthood. We should treat rewriting the celibacy laws as an initial edit—a change on the way to redressing the multitude of other needed reforms. Even at the risk, I’d argue, of getting an unfriendly letter one day from Rome.

Ooh, he's soooo courageous, trying to turn the Catholic Church into a branch of the Episcopalians! And, as we all know, the Episcopalians—who support everything Curran does while also rejecting the Magisterium—are thriving, bursting at the seams! Turning down seminarians! Sending out missionaries to all of the world! Building new churches! Uh, no, not really. (Had you going there, didn't I?)

But Curran, who misread the "signs of the times" back in the mid-60s, is still madly trying to remake the times, even though time is now against him. The young Catholics who are filling the pews across the U.S. and throughout the world not only reject Curran's religious devotion to the "modern life," many of them are sick of much that "modern life" brings, and most of them have never heard of Curran. He and his fight to Episcopalinize the Church is quickly becoming a matter of ancient history, even while the ancient teachings and moral stances of the Church are as life-affirming and vibrant as ever.

• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May

Comments

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Why should you find it hard to believe that Curran loves the Church? Is the Church so unlovable?

[Carl E. Olson]

Why should you find it hard to believe that Curran loves the Church?

Seriously? C'mon.

Is the Church so unlovable?

Apparently she is to Curran, who rejects her teachings and thus rejects the Head of the Church. Curran is like a verbally and emotionally abusive husband who is constantly bullying and mocking his wife while cheating on her, but who then, when called on the carpet, claims to be a faithful, loving husband. His words and actions over 40+ years speak for themselves. These recent words by Pope Benedict XVI, given at a General Audience on May 26th, are quite appropriate:

Generally, it is said that the meaning of the world hierarchy is "sacred dominion," but the real meaning is not this, it is "sacra origine," that is: This authority does not come from man himself, but has its origin in the sacred, in the sacrament; hence it subjects the person to the vocation, to the mystery of Christ; it makes of the individual a servant of Christ and only insofar as he is a servant of Christ can he govern, guide for Christ and with Christ. Because of this, whoever enters in the sacred order of the sacrament, the "hierarchy," is not an autocrat, but enters in a new bond of obedience to Christ: he is tied to him in communion with the other members of the sacred order, of the priesthood. And even the Pope -- point of reference for all the other pastors and for the communion of the Church -- cannot do what he wants; on the contrary, the Pope is custodian of the obedience to Christ, to his word taken up again in the "regula fidei," in the Creed of the Church, and must proceed in obedience to Christ and to his Church. Hence, hierarchy implies a triple bond: first of all, the one with Christ and the order given by the Lord to his Church; then the bond with the other pastors in the one communion of the Church; and, finally, the bond with the faithful entrusted to the individual, in the order of the Church.

Hence, it is understood that communion and hierarchy are not contrary to one another, but condition each other. Together they are only one thing (hierarchical communion). Hence, the pastor is pastor precisely when guiding and protecting the flock and at times impeding its dispersal. Outside a clearly and explicitly supernatural vision, the task of governing proper to priests is not comprehensible. But, sustained by true love for the salvation of each member of the faithful, it is particularly precious and necessary also in our time. If the goal is to take the proclamation of Christ and lead men to the salvific encounter with him so that they will have life, the task of guiding is configured as a service lived in total donation for the upbuilding of the flock in truth and in sanctity, often going against the current and remembering that the one who is the greatest must be made the smallest, and one who governs, must be as one who serves (cf. Lumen Gentium, 27).

Read the entire address.

[JP]

I would have to ask WHICH Church is Curran loving? The one he berates constantly, or the one he would create in his own image?

[Bender]

At least young Fr. Luther had the decency, in his hubris, to go start his own church.

[Christopher Lake]

About the first comment from "Spirit of Vatican II"... why is this "spirit," as it is so often spoken of by Catholic dissenters, usually at odds with the actual *documents* of Vatican II? Hmm?

[MarkAA]

Agreeing with Bender, absolutely correct. And Lutherans (of the LCMS stripe, e.g. conservative) who pay attention to issues Catholic are appalled by the amount of dissent by theologians in the Catholic church. Make no mistake: Catholic dissenters are a distasteful scandal witnessed daily by nonCatholics and are a hindrance to ideas of serious ecumenism.

[Marguerite]

The dissident theologians used and abused the Second Vatican Council to undermine the teaching authority of the Church, mainly out of resentment towards the hierarchy. The "spirit" that Fr. Curran used to promote his heresies was not the same Holy Spirit that was to guide the Council, but the spirit of the times--the cultural revolution of the 60s.

[Tom Pratuch]

I am a former military (combat) officer who took Charlie's class at CUA when I (being unfamiliar with his actual teaching) thought "wow I get to hear a famous teacher."

Charlie developed 5 points to analyze ALL moral systems -- but oddly enough consistently and pointedly refused to analyze his own stated and taught moral system. His system was to improve everyone else's.

I often debated ethics and morality issues with my instructors at CUA when I felt their military example was lacking. All but Charley expressed appreciation for an analysis based on reality. Charlie's response (age 53) to a (35 year old) army veteran was (and I quote in words I will never forget) "I cannot imagine a student disagreeing with an instructor." Yea I was so young and inexperienced.

Before he left CUA he stated (and I am quoting) "any right thinking American would agree with him." Of course America is famously Catholic.

He is someone who enjoyed the cheers of young students and thought it gave him an immortal stature. Christ warned about what happens to those who lead innocents astray.

[Honor]

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."
G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

He also pointed out: "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."

[Nancy]

The failure to discipline and refute the denial of The Truth from those who profess to be Catholic is part of the problem, not the solution. How many souls will continue to be lost while we are sleeping in Gesthemene? Just as Peter denied Christ in public and had to reaffirm his Love for Christ in public, all those who continue to deny The Truth of Love in public should have to reaffirm their Love for Christ in public or be anathema. No doubt, if Christ were here in Person, He would be overturning tables everywhere.

[Gail F]

Charlie's response (age 53) to a (35 year old) army veteran was (and I quote in words I will never forget) "I cannot imagine a student disagreeing with an instructor."

Ha ha, that is rich, coming from someone who disagrees with so many renowed Catholic "instructors," starting with popes! Ah well, some people never tire of their own voices.

[Michael Sullivan]

Congratulations to Fr. Curran for noticing the Pope (like the emperor) isn't wearing any clothes! His dissent from these first century cultural mores is refreshing.

Many of the great Doctors of the Church at one time were at odds with the Vatican- how else can the Church evolve to continue its important mission of providing the Sacrament? No priests= no parishioners= no church. I am counting on the Holy Spirit to correct the situation with the help of thoughtful, participating Catholics- Bishop Paul Iby of Austria agrees with Fr. Curran's position on celibacy and so do I.

[Nancy]

Michael, according to Charles Curren the pedophilia crisis was caused by celibate Priests and NOT by men with a perverted sexual attraction who forced themselves on young children. The emperor, not the Pope, is the one who is in need of some clothes, but it appears you are in need of some glasses.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Fr. C. Curran's disgraced performance requires us to go beyond the surface of facts and penetrate to the springs within. His insidious theorizing, spurious teaching must be remembered for what is is; a man trying to disturb, undo or neutralize legitimate teachings of our Faith.

This is the man that charged, as leader of 200 'modern' theologians, against Humanae Vitae immediately after Paul VI wrote it. He was also leader in The Call to Action, the infamous Conference in Detroit (Dec. 1976) that was totally dominated by radical leftists working to democratize the Church.

Due to his unorthodoxy in many issues he was dismissed from his post as professor of Theology at the C.U.A. but, due to pressure, was reinstated.

In the 1980's Rome finally, by action of Cardinal Ratzinger, took away his license to teach as a Catholic theologian.

It is quite evident Fr. Curran shows a conflict between teaching moral theology and Faith. His disposition is proud and cynical. He neither loves nor respects the Church.

The leniency shown by Rome binds us to say that true judgment has not been passed on him yet.

[Brian]

I saw Curran debate Janet Smith a few years back. She destroyed him in the debate.Curran lost his temper when a student told him he was dead wrong on church teachings. I live in Dallas and have actually attended a Mass he said at the Catholic chappel at SMU. He loves to rearrage all the words of the mass and even said"Our mother, who art in heaven" The guy is totally pathetic human being and definitly needs our prayers.

[JBalconi]

"No priests= no parishioners= no church"

And yet Our Lord Jesus Christ told us that the harvest is plenty but the laborers are few - and He didn't say that would change. He also said that the Church would prevail against Hell and still exist when he came again.

[Curtis Johnson]

Recently, I read an article about the scandal of priestly pedophilia along with a suggestion by Father Curran that the celibacy expected by candidates to be Catholic priests contributes to the problem. As an Orthodox Christian, I am surprised that Catholic priests and deacons cannot have a spouse, as was originally the case..(St. Peter was married, among others)so I began to research the Council of Trent's findings on the issue. Remarkably, the Church in the West seems to have had a problem in medieval Germany with the transfer of Church property when the priest had a family...Western priests and deacons had the right to marry at that time, as it still is the norm among Eastern Orthodox Priests and Deacons. I would like to understand why celibacy is held as somehow spiritually better for people than the married state since Moses records in Genesis that God concluded..."it is NOT good for the man to be alone...let Us therefore make for him a helpmeet..." The married state, I might add, is the reason all of us have human life to begin with, and that includes Rev. Ratzinger and all the present members of the College of Cardinals. Banning marriage creates, it would seem to me, a market for men whose sexual proclivities might be a bit unsuitable for a cleric whose duty it is to minister to the married laity and gives the devil an opportunity I personally don't want him to have (look at the mess this pedophilia business has created for Rome)The atmosphere found in a monastic setting...where individuals are cloistered and can concentrate on unceasing prayer is perfect for the celibate, but I don't think it has served the church very well among those whose job it is to minister directly among the laity.

[Christopher Lake]

Curtis, I'm a 37-year-old single man who, for various reasons, may not ever marry. This might well put me, in a practical, everyday sense, in a similar category as the celibate priest. Does this mean that I am somehow unable to resist pedophilia? Of course not, and therefore, Curran's (and your) case falls apart. Sexual contact is a *desire*, not a need that must be fulfilled.