The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionFr. Charles Curran draws fire for SMU lecture
by Tom Roberts on Oct. 27, 2010
Fr. Charles Curran is an easy target. To those who readily dismiss him as a dissenter from official teaching, he wears a large bull’s eye on his chest. There’s no need to discuss what he’s writing or saying first. Just take aim and shoot. For others he remains one of the few, in a church in which theological speculation has become an exercise to avoid if you want to stay out of Rome’s sights, willing to ask and explore difficult questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: Read NCR's account of Curran's lecture -- Curran: How bishops challenge abortion laws is 'flawed'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest incident involving Curran, reported here, involves a lecture he is scheduled to give Thursday at Southern Methodist University, where he has been teaching since 1991.
Rebuked by the Vatican during the 1980s, Curran was removed from his position at the Catholic University of America for challenging some church teachings on the use of artificial birth control and other social issues.
The contretemps in Dallas began with an announcement by SMU of Curran’s lecture, titled “The U.S. Catholic Bishops and Abortion Legislation: A Critique from Within the Church.” According to a report in The Dallas Morning News, the university release said, “Curran’s lecture will examine how U.S. Roman Catholic bishops have made opposition to legal abortion their primary social issue, and will challenge the bishops from a theological perspective for claiming too much certitude in their position.”
 The Friends of NCR 2011 Annual Appeal is underway. Please support us so that we may continue to provide the best independent Catholic news through informed reporting, analysis and commentary. |
Perhaps that’s simply waving a red cape before the bull, regardless of the diocese, in today’s church and today’s political atmosphere. Those who have attended a Curran lecture expecting fiery denunciations of church teaching from the radical left usually leave disappointed. He is a measured, very detailed and tediously researched scholar who, I’d venture to say, has read more about church teachings, its origins and how it is used, than most bishops anywhere. That’s not to denigrate bishops, it’s just to say that most of them aren’t theologians. The point is that Curran takes the teaching very seriously, and when he critiques it, it is with a nuance and consideration that doesn’t yield easy sound bites.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Bishop Kevin Farrell reacted immediately, reciting the “constant teaching of the church” and expressing his regrets that “Father Curran has chosen to criticize the position of the bishops of the United States on this matter.”
Curran took issue with Farrell’s characterization: “This paper is not about the Catholic moral teaching on abortion,” he told the Morning News. “In fact, the paper accepts the Catholic moral teaching that direct abortion is always wrong. The paper deals solely with abortion law and argues that one who holds the Catholic moral teaching can come to different conclusions about what the law should be.”
Curran, in a brief phone interview today, termed the bishop's statement "reckless and totally false. It should never have been made. I am owed a public apology."
He said he first found out about the statement when he went to liturgy Sunday at SMU and the bishop's printed comments were being passed out to those attending Mass.
What comes to mind immediately is that two U.S. archbishops, Donald Wuerl of Washington and Raymond Burke, previously of St. Louis and currently prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, are both to become cardinals at the next consistory. We all know -- as certainly does Pope Benedict XVI, who named them – that the two hold deeply different views on the matter of whether Catholic politicians who do not support the church’s position on how to deal with abortion in the legal arena should be kept from communion. In other words, they disagree on whether the church should punish lawmakers who differ on what the law should be on the matter of abortion while certainly agreeing on the efficacy of church teaching on the matter.
Another model exists for dealing with theologians who might occasionally pose a problem for church authorities in the questions they pose. Curran writes of that model in his book, Loyal Dissent: Memoir of a Catholic Theologian.
During the 1970s, Curran, then a professor at Catholic University in Washington, received a call from the office of Archbishop Jean Jadot, who was the Apostolic Delegate, or the pope’s representative to the United States, at the time. The person who called said the nuncio wanted to meet with him regularly. Curran was somewhat suspicious, asked if the nuncio would be bringing advisers, saying he intended to bring the same number if that were the case.
A little while later, recounts Curran in his memoir, the nuncio himself called and apologized for not having contacted him personally and said he wanted to meet alone with Curran three or four times a year “in an informal way and off the record in order to hear what I was thinking and writing. He emphasized that he would not agree with everything I said but that he thought it was important for him to know what I was saying and why.”
The two began meeting regularly, engaging in very frank conversation as Curran recalls, until Jadot was recalled to Rome in 1980.
A spokesperson for the Diocese of Dallas said the bishop had not contacted Curran to find out what the lecture would be about before he issued his statement. One might ask, How about Curran notifying the bishop? But Curran, in this case, is doing what academic theologians should do and in an academic setting. Could this latest encounter have been different if Farrell had first contacted Curran and asked if they might talk about the content of the lecture so he would know whether there was anything to be concerned about?
Kevin Farrell should
Kevin Farrell should apologize but of course he will not. Catholic bishops are not known for politeness but they are known for crassness and for slam-banging anyone who disagrees with them. What an embarrassment Farrell is.
Bishop Farrell has no need to
Bishop Farrell has no need to apologize. Father Curran has need to apologize and repent.
The probability of the
The probability of the majority of the bishops passing a 100-level course in public policy is very low. Wanna bet?
Repent for what.....for
Repent for what.....for thinking, studying, and writing? Why do some bishops think that they can say anything about someone who has questions about the stand of the hierarchy on anything and feel they need not explain what they say.
Fr. Curran is a highly
Fr. Curran is a highly respected moral theologian in theological circles. He is widely read and his opinion sought by many. He loves his faith and the church. Curran is a deeply thoughtful man who reads, thinks, studies and prays, and he consults with other theologians. He is a true scholar. There are some bishops who agree with him, and others who do not. Theological questions are much deeper than superficial decision making from arm-chair critics. I do think that the Bishop owes Father Curran an apology. It would be a real sign of grace and opportunity for dialogue.
Submitted by Milbo 1 on Oct.
Submitted by Milbo 1 on Oct. 27, 2010.
You stated:
"Bishop Farrell has no need to apologize. Father Curran has need to apologize and repent."
-------------------------------------
From your comment---every major theologian who ever lived should have apologized to the ordinary of his/her diocese and repented. The apologizing theologians should have included Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Yves Conger, and closer to our own times, Thomas Merton, and Bernard Lonergan (just for starters).
It is true---most American bishops are not theologians---even Pope John Paul II knew that to be true. Our bishops are mostly canon lawyers. But sadly, JPII was the one who has made it difficult for any theologian to honestly bring out the knowledge that they have labored to achieve to the people.
If a person, stating that they were teachers, did not have the credentials that mark them as such---how can they muzzle those who DO have the credentials? But that is what too many of our bishops do. They DON'T have the backgrounds in theology (many couldn't pass a graduate theology course). But they try to snuff out any presentation made by good theologians.
Fr. Curran has forgotten aspects of theology that Bishop Farrell has yet to learn. One thing Farrell should learn is----know what is being presented for sure---before you condemn.
Repressionist tactics (being utilized by the hierarchy), have no place in our society today. When this happened in Communist-controlled societies----our official Church decried (and rightly so) that the 'truth' could not be proclaimed. But our "official" Church is showing that it is equally repressive with theologians who can show the other side of the coin.
Fr. Curran clearly and
Fr. Curran clearly and directly asserted his conformity with the Church's teaching concerning abortion. Legislative policy falls outside of the bishop's authority. For what should Fr. Curran repent?
Well spoken and spot on.
Well spoken and spot on.
of and for what exactly,
of and for what exactly, Milbo?
Fulfilling his vocation as theologian perfectly?
one of the greatest living anglo american ROman CAtholic theologians.
There is certainly plenty of
There is certainly plenty of room for apologies in this one. There is an intaganistic tone to both sides it seems. Curran, along with the extreme left love the fact that he (Curran) is in the "victim" role. The big bad Bishops dare to question the so-called enlightened theologian.
On the other hand, Bishops have, historically and presently avoided asking the difficult questions that surround certain hot-button issues in the political and ecclesial world. Some do become real comfortable hiding from cross roads of the human/spiritual integration. Many of them are less than charitable in their deliberations also.
Both of the above have MAJOR ISSUES to deal with --- one being that of true humility. The other being that of "obedience". There is a true arrogance that is at play in both Curran and the Bishops. They both need the humility, courage and total abandonment to God to face their demons and then come to discussion with grace and a prayerful presence.
Hey Anon - are you the
Hey Anon - are you the ARROGANCE AND HUMILTY police? Also, why hide behind anon - what closet are you hiding in?
'PLAYING THE VICTIM' says Mr.
'PLAYING THE VICTIM' says Mr. Anonymous. Fatther Curran gets publicly abused by a local bishop so Curran is "playing the victim" role now.
I suppose, too, all those young boys and girls abused by priests and bishops are simply "playing the victim" role now.
Rabble rabble rabble Dissent
Rabble rabble rabble
Dissent dissent dissent
Rabble rabble rabble
Go to the Anglicans now!
Go to the Anglicans? And
Go to the Anglicans? And leave the Catholic Church to fundamentalists like you? Not!
No, he should stay and the
No, he should stay and the John Paul II people should leave. Just read the article, Jadot, Pope Paul VI's appointee, in the spirit of Vatican II was able to listen. Fr. Curran knows the history and theology of this topic and should be heard. Theologians deserve a hearing and respect. The polish pope could not offer this since in his pride he thought he had all the answers. His followers now think he is god. Curran should stay, and all of you who focus more on John Paul II rather than Jesus and the Gospels should start your own Church of the Divine Wotyla.
I, too, am getting mighty
I, too, am getting mighty tired of being told to leave. There's room in the church of The People of God for ALL of us if only we take some recent words of Cardinal George to heart: "follow the Gospel and the imperative of love."
Let's be clear. Members of
Let's be clear. Members of the hierarchy have no accountability to anyone for anything except, of course, showing up for and performing their duties like anyone who works for a living.
These medieval "noblemen" and princes reign supreme in their fiefdoms (dioceses) and can simply do or say anything they desire with no need to answer to anybody. Even illegal acts are protected by the boss (Pope); look at Cardinal Law, supreme pedophile protector of all times, reigning in splendor from his basilica in Rome!
So, given the current culture, how can we expect any accommodation or civility from these supreme leaders? Even the supreme leaders in Islamic countries like Iran are more accountable in governance than these Catholic hierarchs.
Bottom line? There's no better employee benefits package on the planet than the one for holding your place in the line of apostolic succession.
No, they aren't tactful. In
No, they aren't tactful. In some cases, they are well meaning jerks, but still jerks. US Catholic bishops are known for being reactive, not proactive, sloppy administrators and exeutives, without the knowledge, skills, or abilities for running a diocese, much less priest, deacon, and lay personnel; delegating real management concerns to flunkies and being too pro conservative (political, not liturgical) and too pro modern/liberal (liturgical, not political) instead of applying common sense to situations and striking a balanced approached to stewardship.
No, they aren't tactful. In
No, they aren't tactful. In some cases, they are well meaning jerks, but still jerks. US Catholic bishops are known for being reactive, not proactive, sloppy administrators and exeutives, without the knowledge, skills, or abilities for running a diocese, much less priest, deacon, and lay personnel; delegating real management concerns to flunkies and being too pro conservative (political, not liturgical) and too pro modern/liberal (liturgical, not political) instead of applying common sense to situations and striking a balanced approached to stewardship.
Charles Curran is a thinking
Charles Curran is a thinking man's theologian, by definition, that puts him at odds with the hierarchy. This quotation from the Bishop says it all: "Bishop Kevin Farrell reacted immediately, reciting the “constant teaching of the church” and expressing his regrets that “Father Curran has chosen to criticize the position of the bishops of the United States on this matter.”
Two things can be garnered from that: 1] constant teaching of the church equates to absolute truth, and 2] the bishops are always absolutely correct and are therefore immune from all criticism.
That being the case, all institutions of higher learning [Catholic and non-Catholic] should immediately close their doors and just read and repeat the declarations of the bishops, the fountainhead of all truth! Think of the money that could be saved! Think of all the progress that could be stifled! Think of how nice it would be to live like people did 1500 yrs. ago.
No! I want to continue to grow intellectually, theologically and philosophically and reject the stagnant scum-filled approach to thinking that the United States Catholic Bishops propose. It is an insult to any thinking human being. Shame, shame, and more shame on them!
Kudos to you, Fr. Curran. From where I stand, I would much rather feed my functioning brain than to subscribe to the brain dead dictates of the Catholic bishops. Jesus came to enlighten us, not to novocaine our minds!
Your comments ring so true.
Your comments ring so true. Theologians are not supposed to be catechists or mouthpieces for the hierarchs. Bishops, on the other hand, are not supposed to be episcopal lackeys for the pope and curia.
Thank God for *thinkers* like Curran in the field of theology.
Too bad we do not see independent, critical thinking among most of our hierarchs such as Kevin Farrell.
Amen! Jewish tradition
Amen! Jewish tradition includes questioning what is believed, why it is important, and how it applies to life today. This debate is encouraged. Children are encouraged to question. Jesus grew up in this living faith tradition. Yet, we have a hierarchy that discourages any and all debate by telling us exactly what we should believe and ignores any new insights by scholars dismissing them by saying they are "out of line with Catholic teaching." How does this honor the tradition in which Jesus was raised? If ours is a living faith, it will change over time. The heirarchy can't contain the Spirit in the middle ages.
The riddle at the core of the
The riddle at the core of the abortion issue is “When does the living human product of conception become a person?” Some hold that it is a person from the moment of conception, while others hold it is not a person until some later point in its development. The answer is important, because a person has rights but a thing does not. Neither philosophy nor theology nor biology gives us a reliable answer. Neither does our present civil law.
In its ruling against partial-birth abortion, the Supreme Court ruled that it would be infanticide to kill a living fetus whose head and shoulders have emerged from the womb. In other words, the fetus at that stage is a person and has a right to life. In Roe v. Wade, the Court wrestled with this question, and decided the fetus has no legal rights during the first trimester. In Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Court recognized fetal rights when the fetus has reached viability (capable of meaningful life outside the womb). Thus, according to the Court, our present civil law narrows the period during which the fetus becomes a legal person to somewhere between the start of the second trimester to the start of viability.
From what Fr. Curran has said about his forthcoming lecture, "the paper accepts the Catholic moral teaching that direct abortion is always wrong." But the bishops should publicly acknowledge the moral difference between early and late term abortion and contribute to a decision in civil law on the time in fetal development when the unborn will be recognized as a human person with a right to life.
Conception is constitutive of
Conception is constitutive of human life. The word "person" is a philsophical term and is rendered nugatory if new life is destroyed. You already know this.
A cell taken from your mouth
A cell taken from your mouth for genetic screening or DNA analysis is alive and human. Is it a person? Does it have rights, including a right to life?
A cell taken from your mouth
A cell taken from your mouth is a cell taken from your mouth. It is not a zygote, much less a fetus.
Kevin has as much freedom of
Kevin has as much freedom of speech as Charles. Besides, remember, "Don't get offended", then no apology needed. Grow up (or wise up), Charles.
Sorry Peter, but in the
Sorry Peter, but in the Church there is no such thing as freedom of speech. Don't confuse the teachings of the Church with the constitution of the United States.
Just a point of clarification
Just a point of clarification - Kevin Farrell is the Bishop of Fort Worth; Cardnial DiNardo is the Archbishop of Dallas, and although the two dioceses are close geographically, Fort Worth isn't Dallas. It would be interesting to know what the Cardninal's position and response are.
Just a point of clarification
Just a point of clarification - Kevin is the bishop of Dallas. Cardinal Dinardo is the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston.
Just to clarify this
Just to clarify this "clarification"; Kevin Vann is Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth. Kevin Farrell is the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas. Cardinal DiNardo is the Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Galvestion-Houston, not an Archbishop. Both Dallas and Fort Worth are in the Archdiocese of Galvestion-Houston, as are 12 other dioceses.
Since we are clarifying
Since we are clarifying clarifications, Kevin, Cardinal DiNardo IS the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. Being a cadinal does not change the fact that he is Archbishop, it is just an additional honor/responsibility. His "job" title is still Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, not Cardinal of Galveston-Houston. (Though you could say Cardinal-Archbishop...)
To further clarify your
To further clarify your statement - Kevin Farrell is Bishop of Dallas, Kevin Vann is Bishop of Fort Worth - and Cardinal DiNardo is Archbishop of both and very active in the right to life movement. We do not even know what Curran's argument is - so how can anyone even discuss (Bishop included) whether his paper is correct or incorrect in its premises? Seems to me Bishop Farrell jumped the gun when he did not even know what Curran will be saying.
Kevin Farrell is the bishop
Kevin Farrell is the bishop of Dallas. Kevin Vann is the bishop of Fort Worth. DiNardo is the archbishop of Galveston-Houston.
Kevin Vann is Bishop of Fort
Kevin Vann is Bishop of Fort Worth. Kevin Farrell is Bishop of Dallas. It's easy to get the two Kevins mixed up. Cardinal DiNardo is Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, not Dallas.
Cardinal DiNardo is the
Cardinal DiNardo is the Archbishop of Galveston Houston not Dallas.
OOPS - sorry - got carried
OOPS - sorry - got carried away for a moment - forgot!
Just a little more
Just a little more clarification. Farrell is Bishop of Dallas, Vann is Bishop of Ft. Worth, DiNardo is Cardinal Archbishop of of Galveston/Houston archdiocese, which if I remember correctly and things haven't changed, includes all of Texas. Could be wrong about that last one.
It would have been better if Bishop Farrell had spoken with Curren, but Curren is an academic at a non-catholic school and the issue of academic freedom would be a factor - not to Bishop Farrell perhaps, but certainly to Curren.
It does sound as though Curren is straining at nats a bit. But that is what academics do. On this one Curren seems to be against abortion in principle, but also against how the USCCB and individual bishops is/are comporting themselves in the political area. As for myself - abortion is usually a sine qua non, but there are exceptions. To me that is where prudence comes in.
By and large Farrell seems to be doing a decent job, but he is conservative so if you are on the other side (as I am) - please, no piling on.
What? The bishop of Fort
What? The bishop of Fort Worth Diocese is Kevin Vann. Dallas is not an archdiocese. Not sure, but I think DiNardo is Archbishop of Houston-Gavleston
Wait, I thought Cardinal
Wait, I thought Cardinal Daniel DiNardo belonged to Galveston-Houston. Has he been reassigned within the last few hours?
Correction of the
Correction of the Clarification. Kevin Vann is the Bishop of Fort Worth, Kevin Farrell is the Bishop of Dallas and Daniel Dinardo is the Cardinal Archbishop of Galveston-Houston.l
Bishop Kevin Farrell is the
Bishop Kevin Farrell is the Bishop of Dallas Diocese
http://www.cathdal.org/
Cardinal DiNardo is in the Galveston-Houston Diocese
http://www.diogh.org/bishops_dinardo.htm
The Fort Worth Diocese is headed by Bishop Kevin Vann
http://www.fwdioc.org/Pages/default.aspx
Kevin Farrell, for beter or
Kevin Farrell, for beter or for worse, is the Bishop of Dallas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Dallas
Kevin Vann is the Bishop of Cowtown, er, I mean Ft Worth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Fort_Worth
They are both suffragen bishops to the Metropolitan Archbishop Garcia-Siller in San Antonio.
DiNardo is the Metropolitan Cardinal Archbishop of Galveston-Houston.
Kevin Vann is the bishop of
Kevin Vann is the bishop of Fort Worth, Kevin Farrell is the archbishop of Dallas and Daniel DiNardo is the archbishop of Galveston-Houston.
Actually, Leota, Bishop
Actually, Leota, Bishop Farrell is Bishop of the diocese of Dallas-Fort Worth. Cardinal DiNardo is Archbishop of Glaveston-Houston, a long way from Dalls. You ought to check your facts before you attempt to"clarify?
Who's on first? ;-) (Baseball
Who's on first? ;-)
(Baseball comedy reference)
The culture of the Catholic
The culture of the Catholic Hierarchy in the last 40 years is to only accept the directives from above thus only the directives of The Pope is the supreme word on all Catholic teaching. There is no place for dialogue, we have been told this over and over. No thinking, no investigations, no questioning, no learning, no debate! are allowed. So what is new? The Bishops are bound to the Pope by vow. They do not vow to help bring about the healthy future of the Church or adapt it to the needs of the people or even be Christlike. Jesus talked about having a splinter in your eye and the consequences. The Bishops have several splinters and are thus rendered blind.
The ship of faith is being steered by the blind!
That is why so many have decided it was their Time to Jump ship!!
Sad..
The bishops should make
The bishops should make opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual unions even more vocal than has been the case. That such opposition is interpreted as partisan against Demoncrats is simply to note that the Demoncrat Party supports intrinsic evils that Catholics are morally obligated to oppose and which bishops are obligated to denounce.
Debborah: it is the
Debborah: it is the DemocratIC party - but you know that already, don't you?
The sad commentary is all too
The sad commentary is all too common: people (bishops and others) criticize without actually reading the document or listening to what is being said: they react before they understand what they are reacting to. And then they react as if the people of God were stupid and unable to think for themselves to determine the validity of ideas being expressed. Somewhere along the line, many in authority are convinced that it is their God given mandate to act as the "corrector" - and therefore even acquire nicknames such as Charles the Corrector, etc. Generally speaking most people in the pews are reasonably intelligent people and don't need someone to tell them what someone else said. Would it not be better to actually engage in a life giving dialogue that might allow the Spirit to enter into the conversation and shed some light.
Bishop Farrell has nothing to
Bishop Farrell has nothing to apologize for in his statement. At least he aimed before he fired away. Curran's approach on these matters is Ready-Fire-Aim. Of course he should have discussed this with the Bishop. Called respect! I am so tired of the Academics hiding behind Institutional freedom. If you don't think there is a link between birth control and divorce and a connection between abortion and deterioration of the Family (Husband/Wife/Children) and a connection between the deterioration of Moral/right vs wrong because of Relativism, think again. Bishops are not perfect, which one of us will cast the first stone! But we all wish they were. I wish they would be more firm and consistent in their teaching. Decent is one thing, but people like Fr. Curran cause confusion not clarity. They don't realize or maybe they do, how much harm they cause.
Rick I noticed you left out
Rick I noticed you left out adultery, serial monogamy, and male parental abandonment. I wish the bishops would teach the relative evil of these three issues, but I guess these sins aren't nearly so important. And this in spite of the fact the Bible is loaded with pages of admonitions against adultery as opposed to the three or four verses about homosexuality.
Bisop Farrell did not "aim
Bisop Farrell did not "aim before he shot" (your need to make violent metaphors should concern you). You make a number of assertions in your comment Rick without even a hint of proof. I challenge you, if you genuinely care about the truth to document these assertions!
Have you ever read any of Fr. Curran's books or articles? Do you even know what he thinks? Perhaps you too should think before you cast stones at a theologian who is, and has always been, a priest in good standing.
Father Curran has no
Father Curran has no obligation to discuss his remarks with any bishop. He is giving a lecture at a non-Catholic school where he is employed. No clearance or permission from the local bishop is required. You might be of the opinion that Fr. Curran should have done so out of respect, but that's an opinion, nothing more.
The bishop is complaining based, it appears, solely on the title of the lecture and what he thinks he knows of Fr. Curran's positions. Sorry, no legitimate grounds for complaint exist there. The entire activity is outside of the bishop's purview.
Fr. Curran is giving a
Fr. Curran is giving a lecture at the very university where he is already teaching. It's not a Catholic univsersity and it is not under the control of the diocese. He has no obligation to discuss anything with the local bishop before giving a talk.
First and foremost, Fr.
First and foremost, Fr. Charles Curran is, in many ways, an exceptionally gifted and highly spiritual priest. During Vatican II, he was a significant expert, or peritus, as was Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. Human nature is always driven by pendula (swings). Currently, there is a post-Vatican II backlash. This could have been forecast to eventually occur even as the council closed in its triumph in the 1960's. Fr. Ratzinger ultimately chose to go in one direction with the pendulum (conservative) while Fr. Curran chose the opposite. At the present, the neo-conservatives hold most leadership power and positions in the Church. These conservatives will be uncomfortable with true Vatican II proponents. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is actually in final charge. S/he (not the liberals or conservatives) will ultimately lead the Church into the coming centuries. Veni Sancti Spiritus!
Thank you, Karl. Those we
Thank you, Karl. Those we castigate & support most are those most in need of our prayers to allow the Spirit to work in them.
As much as I respect Charles
As much as I respect Charles Curran, he was NOT a peritus at Vatican II. Ratzinger was, and has changed his positions taken there considerably (see the reprinted 1966 "Theological Highlights of Vatican II" (Paulist Press).
Charlie Curran is my hero.
Charlie Curran is my hero. While you can't describe his rhetorical style as flashy, I think I take umbrage at "tediously researched." At least give him "meticulously!"
Human beings are perhaps
Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are
convinced beyond doubt that they are right. -Laurens van der Post, explorer
and writer (1906-1996)
A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a
superstition. -Jose Bergamin, author (1895-1983)
Fr. Curran teaches at SMU,
Fr. Curran teaches at SMU, not a Catholic institution. Bishop Farrell has no jurisdiction over this activity, as ex cordae ecclesiae does not apply to SMU (thank GOD).
This means that Fr. Curran's primary audience is non-Catholic.
Also, Bishop Farrell and his brother bishop, Bishop Vann of Ft. Worth were among the bishops in the US who wrote letters to their faithful, with "advice" on how to consider the elections of 2008.
The Dallas Morning News recently ran a favorable profile of Bishop Farrell, one can find it on their website, or in Google.
I read that luff article in
I read that luff article in the DMN probably promoted by the paper's conservative Catholic publisher. It did not mention that Bishop Farrell moved into an expensive house, abolished all post-Kos abuse reforms and oversight committees (women, deacons and lay people no longer serve on any oversight committee. Everything is run by priests), and he then abolished all "bad" news in the diocesan newspaper including any letters to the editor (they could be critical, you know). Too, he has quietly paid off abuse cases with no transparency about what happened, what was the abuse, when did it occur and how much it was settled for. There is more secrecy than ever here.
Fsather Curran famously
Fsather Curran famously realized that once they kicked him out of teaching at an officially Roman CAtohlic institution, they had no more control over him
please read his Loyal Dissent and Faithful Dissent
they did not make the same mistake with other professors of theology, but kept the ropes tight
I thank God for Charlie
I thank God for Charlie Curran's wisdom, insight, courage and perserverance every time I read something that he writes or says. Next month I hope to thank Charlie personally, in Milwaukee. Pace e bene!
Fr. Curran is an enormously,
Fr. Curran is an enormously, gifted, articulate, thoughtful and loyal son of the Church, a living witness to Anselm of Canterbury's classic definition of theology as "faith seeking understanding." He is unquestionably a man of faith, prayer and integrity and a talented theologian. However, I might occasionally disagree with Fr. Curran on some of his conclusions, he enjoys my utmost admiration and respect as a teacher and theologian as the Church struggles to teach in the name of Jesus. I was privileged to study under Fr. Curran's tutelage at the Catholic University in 1984-1985. It is a crying shame when bishops "react" without entering into dialogue with faithful sons and daughters. Fr. Curran is simply being faithful to his task as a theologian. Bishops today in their neuralgic reaction to one issue risk the very credibility of their teaching office. I do believe that Fr. Curran is owed an apology.
Daniel E. Doyle, OSA
I also had the privelege to
I also had the privelege to study under Fr. Curran at St Bernard's Seminary in Rochester very early in his career. Having grown up in the 'fire and brimstone' era, I found it very rewarding to view God as a 'loving Father' presented so very eloquently by Fr Curran. His classes were always very thought provoking and open to intense dialogue. I too have some disagreeing opinions of his teachings but never thought of them as being outside the teachings of the Church. Indeed, I found myself more drawn to the church's message knowing that it was ok to think outside the box rather than just blindly agreeing with everything professed by the 'Conservatives' as gospel! Vatican II wanted to open the windows but we now find them all being shut! You who want the old liturgy back---beware of what comes with it!
Charles Curran should have
Charles Curran should have done Farrell the courtesy of letting him know he was planning to speak publically about such an issue (rather than letting the Dallas Morning News do the talking for him), if he was that concerned about how Farrell would react. (He could have also let Farrell know he intended to discuss abortion law, not abortion.) Charles Curran is a big boy and he knows how this game is played. He's not a victim here.
"Charles Curran is a big
"Charles Curran is a big boy..."
Yes, too bad one cannot say the same of Kevin Farrell!
What do you understand about
What do you understand about the responsibility of a teacher at the SMU? He is no longer teaching for the Catholic Church (that was settled years ago). Does every professor at SMU "as a courtesy," have to pass their talks through a bishop, or THE bishop? Can you and I teach a subject (yes, even theology) without talking to a bishop? Why? Or why not? Bishops teach on faith and morals, and can say what they will. But since there is no mandatum needed or required to teach at a secular university, and since he is not teaching for the Catholic Church, he has no obligation, even from a courtesy point of view, to pass his lesson plans through the Church. While he is an internationally respected theologian, he has no teaching connection to the bishop. Faith seeking knowledge he does well.
Mr JCL: Since when did it
Mr JCL: Since when did it become necessary for a Catholic to get a bishop's prior permission to talk publicly on any topic? Father Curran does not work for Bishop Farrell. In terms of ethics, courtesy, and getting things right, doesn't the true responsibility fall on the one who condemns?
Post new comment