A Catholic Call for Dissent

Charles E. Curran wrote in the LA Times I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently. In the summer of 1986, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world, concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings. Pope John Paul II approved the finding that "one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology." Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches."

I was fired. It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me. It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced).


Kevin Drum blogged That's par for the course. Six out of seven of those items are related to sex and gender. In the end, that's what it's always about, isn't it?

Professor Bainbridge blogged I got a lot of flack from Kevin's end of the blogosphere when I said much the same thing about Andrew Sullivan the other day, but perhaps Kevin meant it as a critique of the Church rather than of Curran (most of the comments to that post seem to assume so). In either case, it seems to me that the Church is not preoccupied with sex or gender, it's simply forced to constantly deal with the incessant complaints of those who monomaniacally dissent from the Church's teachings in those areas.

Tim Dunlop blogged Curran's argument is that Catholics should dissent, though it is obvious that the Church's current leadership strongly disagrees. I won't rehash the arguments I made below, but the article is an interesting insight into the reality of the Catholic Church's management practices.

It seems strange to me that so many American Catholics seem to think that the Church should change it's teachings to agree with what they think. I always thought that one goes to church to learn what God wants, not to express what they think the church should teach. It they disagree so much with the Catholic Church's teachings, why don't they find a church that is closer to what they think. If they want a church where women can become priests, I think the Episcopal church can accomodate them. If they want a church that allows gays to marry, I think the Unitarians can accomodate them. I am not sure what church, if any, supports divorce, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts like Charles Curran wants, but I guess they can always create their own church. Whether it leads to salvation is a separate issue, but most of them seem more interested in the Here and not the Hereafter.