Facing An Ultimatum from Rome, Curran Fights for his Right to Dissent

By Montgomery Brower  (07 April 1986)

The letter from the Vatican’s Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger carried an ultimatum: Recant or lose your status as a Catholic theologian. Once again the Rev. Charles E. Curran—known to almost everyone as “Charlie”—had caught lightning. As a tenured professor of moral theology at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., Curran has kept up a spirited dissent from church teaching on birth control, masturbation, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce, abortion and euthanasia, arguing that in some cases they may not be absolutely wrong. Now, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants to silence the turbulent priest, and Curran is fighting back. “I continue to hold my basic position that dissent from authoritative, noninfallible church teaching is possible and in certain cases is justified,” he told a press conference called to answer the warning from Rome. “My position is in keeping with a long-standing tradition. I cannot and do not retract it.” (The Pope is infallible on faith and morals only when speaking ex cathedra. Since Vatican I in 1869-70, this has occurred only once, in 1950, when Pius XII issued a decree on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.)

The controversial Curran has gone head-to-head with church authorities twice before. In 1967, when Catholic University’s board of trustees decided—with no explanation—not to renew his contract, a strike by students and faculty convinced the board to keep him on and promote him to associate professor. In 1968 he spearheaded U.S. Catholic resistance to Pope Paul VI’s reaffirmation of the church ban on artificial contraception, organizing some 600 theologians and other academics who declared that Catholic couples could in good conscience practice birth control. His continuing dissent on issues of human sexuality has earned him the ire of American Catholic conservatives, who have bombarded the Vatican with complaints about his views. In 1979, as part of Pope John Paul II’s drive for orthodoxy, the Congregation launched an investigation of Curran that has culminated in the Vatican’s latest threat. “This is much more serious than 1968,” says Curran. “This is intervention by the Holy See.” If he loses his status as a Catholic theologian, he says, “I won’t be able to teach theology at any Catholic school in the country.”

Many feel that would be a great loss. Tall and slim, easygoing with a ready sense of humor, the 52-year-old teacher is as beloved of his students as he is of controversy. Shunning clerical garb, he prefers to wear a coat and tie. When California Republican Congressman Robert Dornan, a Catholic conservative, asked him why he dressed in civvies and let people call him by his first name, the priest replied, ” ‘Cause Jesus did.”

But Curran, who lives in a two-room suite above the theology department offices, is no self-styled radical guru. He teaches only graduate courses, mostly to students in their 30s and 40s, and is known for assigning a grueling work load. “He presents Roman Catholic teaching clearly, fairly and objectively,” says Sister Sally McReynolds, 47, who studied under Curran and is now a Ph.D. candidate in systematic theology. “He emphasizes the strengths and the weaknesses, but he emphasizes the strengths more.”

Curran maintains that his differences with church teachings on sexuality fall well within the mainstream of Catholic theology. The great majority of Catholics in this country reject the birth control ban, Catholics are divorced in the same proportion as the general population, and a recent Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Catholics do not believe premarital sex is morally wrong. Ratzinger nevertheless cites four major issues on which Curran departs from church doctrine:

•The church teaches that artificial contraception and sterilization are intrinsically wrong. Says Curran: “I’ve maintained that these actions are not intrinsically evil but can be good or evil insofar as they’re governed by the principles of responsible parenthood and stewardship.”

•Ratzinger says, “Every true Catholic must hold that abortion and euthanasia are unspeakable crimes.” Curran argues that “truly individual” human life does not occur until the second and third week after conception. “One can be justified in taking truly individual human life,” he adds, “only for the sake of the life of the mother or for a value commensurate with life itself.” Curran tentatively proposes a case for euthanasia: “When the dying process begins there seems to be no difference between the act of omission [not using extraordinary means to prolong life] and the positive act of bringing about death.”

•Ratzinger terms masturbation, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts “intrinsically immoral.” Curran says that while masturbation “falls short of the full meaning of human sexuality and should not generally be seen as entirely good or praiseworthy, it is not normally a serious issue…. For an irreversible, constitutional or genuine homosexual, homosexual acts in the context of a loving relationship striving for permanency can in a certain sense be objectively morally acceptable. The full meaning of human sexuality involves a permanent commitment of love between a man and a woman. Pastoral practice here requires prudence in dealing with people who do not accept such an understanding in practice…. Only in very rare and comparatively few situations would I justify premarital sexuality.”

•Ratzinger says marriage is “an indissoluble bond.” Curran replies, “The Catholic Church should change its teachings on indissolubility and allow divorce in certain circumstances.”

Because the teachings he questions are not declared “infallible,” Curran argues that his caveats fall within the bounds of permissible dissent under church law. “Infallibility is like pregnancy,” he says. “Either you are or you aren’t. It is unjust to single me out for disciplinary action of any type when so many other Catholic theologians hold the same position.”

Curran, born the son of an insurance adjuster (and leading Democrat) in Rochester, N.Y., is what seminarians call a “womb-to-tomber.” He entered St. Andrew’s Minor Seminary at 13 and eventually took his two doctorates in Rome before returning to his home diocese to teach at St. Bernard’s Seminary. He moved on to Catholic University in 1965, when it became clear his opinions on birth control were not welcome in Rochester. “One thing I’ve inherited from my father is cynicism,” he once said. “If you’re cynical enough, you don’t fall for everything that comes down the pike. And I never fell for all the folderol [in Rome].”

This time, however, Rome means business, and the current attempt to rein in Curran has divided the American church. “I welcome the action,” declares Auxiliary Bishop Austin Vaughan of New York. But nine former presidents of the Catholic Theological Society of America support Curran and have circulated a statement—already signed by more than 600 Catholic theologians—challenging the Vatican position. Curran’s home bishop, Matthew Clark of Rochester, says that questioning Curran’s status as a theologian is “a serious setback to Catholic education.” Chicago’s Joseph Cardinal Bernardin has urged Ratzinger to accept a compromise suggested by Curran that would point out the theologian’s errors but allow him to continue teaching. But Ratzinger appears unswayed.

Though 300 students turned out at a rally to support Curran, he can’t count on Catholic U. to go on strike this time. “While the contributions Father Curran has made to this community cannot be ignored,” editorialized the student newspaper, The Tower, “the right of the church to protect faithfully her teachings and guide those who would teach as Catholic theologians is paramount.” Curran chooses to see the controversy as an educational opportunity. “No matter what happens,” he says, “I want to make this a teaching moment.”  (source)

• Contributors:
• Jim Castelli

Homosexuality and the Message of Isaiah

by Frederick J. Gaiser

Frederick J. Gaiser teaches Old Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul. This article appeared in The Christian Century, May 2, 2006. pp. 26f. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by permission.

If those in the church who are in favor of changing long-held attitudes and ordinances relating to homosexuals were merely cultural relativists with no regard for the Bible or tradition, the debate would be easier. The same would be true, of course, if those wishing to retain those attitudes and ordinances were merely diehard homophobes who used the Bible selectively to their own ends. But neither is the case. Though there may be some people who more or less fit those categories, the hard truth is that Christians of good will — more, Christians of good faith — for whom the Bible remains the source and norm of faith and life sincerely disagree about whether or how biblical passages regarding homosexual behavior relate to the current situation. In other words, exegesis — important as it is — will not solve the problem.

What then to do? There are many responsible ways to carry on this discussion. One way is to seek help from a somewhat parallel situation in the Bible itself.

The situation I have in mind is the one Israel faced following the exile. The question for Israel was how it should reconstitute itself. With all preexilic institutions shattered, what would mark the way forward? Was this the time to circle the wagons and defend past traditions in the face of the chaotic conditions that came with being a province of Persia, subject to dangerous foreign influences? Some said yes, and found solid biblical warrant for their stance in the many parts of God’s law that call for purity, holiness and separation from the world. Others thought this might be a time to welcome the stranger and open the doors to new possibilities. Those who made this argument pointed to God’s call to be a city on the hill and a blessing to the nations. Both sides could claim fidelity and find good biblical support.

Enter the prophet of Isaiah 56. Speaking for God, he announced: “Do not let the foreigner joined to the LORD say, ‘The LORD will surely separate me from his people’; and do not let the eunuch say, ‘I am just a dry tree.’ For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths . . . I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. And the foreigners who. . . hold fast my covenant — these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer. . .for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (56:1-7).

Throw open the doors, said the prophet. In saying this, he set himself against biblical legislation that clearly argued otherwise. It says in the book of Deuteronomy, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord” (23:1). A similar passage in Leviticus declares that “no one who has a blemish shall draw near” the sanctuary, including one with “crushed testicles” (21:18-20).

Some biblical scholars see this development in Isaiah as an Old Testament instance of the sort of radical reinterpretation or even abrogation of a previous divine word that marks Jesus’ own ministry (“You have heard . . . but l say to you. . .”) How is such a thing possible?

The prophet, like Jesus, claims to speak as “one with authority” — that is, precisely as a prophet, one who brings from God a new and life-giving word. But the old words, barring eunuchs from the assembly and limiting the access of foreigners, claimed authority too. Does the prophet simply promote chaos by urging folks to do their own thing? By no means. The promise, in its radicality, remains fully within God’s established covenant with Israel.

“Maintain justice, and do what is right,” says Isaiah (56:1 — keep the sabbath and hold fast the covenant. Foreigners and eunuchs are called to observe Torah and confess their faith just as do other Israelites. The inclusivity proclaimed in Isaiah 56:1-8 is not an ideology that simply proclaims acceptance, disallowing claims to truth and differentiation. Those eunuchs and foreigners are welcomed who confess Yahweh and give themselves to the demands of the covenant.

Further, the promise comes not by right but as gift. A conversation about human rights is always in order, to be sure — particularly in regard to issues of human sexuality — but Isaiah is speaking of the remarkable generosity of God, who “will give an everlasting name” to the eunuchs, precisely those who could establish no name for themselves by the normal processes of procreation.

The text moves beyond legalities and orders and speaks from the perspective of a divine grace that changes everything. It does so, in part, by seeing the present in the light of God’s future. A new salvation is on the horizon, one that, like the old, will be “good news to the oppressed” and “liberty to the captives”(61:1). New life will be possible even in the midst of unfulfilled political hopes. In Isaiah’s language, God is “about to do a new thing” (43:19) — or, in more modern parlance, God is going where no one has gone before.

Finally, in the eyes of the prophet, it is not a matter of eunuchs and foreigners being “allowed” into a community that is whole in itself and that now condescends to let in some who, alas, are not like them. Rather, God is gathering “others” to “the outcasts of Israel” that God has “already gathered” (56:8). The people of Israel can accept the inclusion of others because they know themselves to be outcasts and sinners, welcome in God’s house because of who God is and what God has done, not because of their own righteousness. There is no “we” who magnanimously admit “them”; there is a community of outcasts who together recognize their common need of undeserved grace.

What might this mean for the present discussion about the place in the church of homosexually oriented believers? Might the contemporary church hear itself and its situation addressed by a surprising prophetic word that, in the name of God, calls previous words of God into question? That is to say, might God be calling the church to a “new thing” in which not even earlier words of God — good and proper for their own time — can stand in the way of the broader community God now has in mind?

An assenting response will not be universal, of course, just as it was not in the time of the prophet. Was the prophet’s new word canonical? Will the people of God now understand God to be up to something new? Time (and the Spirit) will tell, and prayer will be in order.

At the same time, the conversation about the inclusion of “others” might find a way to uphold the prophet’s insistence that all — insiders and former outsiders alike — are called to “maintain justice and do what is right,” to “keep the sabbath” and “hold fast to the covenant.” Again, “anything goes” is not the prophet’s theme.

What will it mean for homosexual unions (or heterosexual ones, in our difficult times) to “keep the sabbath”? What will it mean for both sides in this debate — at least as it takes place among believers, in and for the church — to move beyond political ideologies and culture wars and stand together under God’s word of law and gospel? Once more, the conclusion of such a process will hardly be foregone, but God might again do surprising things among people who give themselves to God’s living word.

Standing under the word in prayer while waiting for the clarification of the Spirit will satisfy neither those who argue for “justice now” nor those for whom the faith itself is at stake in this issue — and those people will necessarily continue their professions and protestations. But such waiting might prevent rending of the body of Christ and might finally allow a contemporary understanding that, like the biblical canon, retains a place for both tradition and renewal, the old and the new.   (source)