Rome Sends a Strong Message

By Michael P. Harris.

Pope John Paul II began his reign eight years ago, at a time when theologians and laity alike were openly questioning some traditional teachings of the church. Since then the Vatican has attempted to restore a sense of doctrinal discipline; it removed renegade Swiss Theologian Hans Kung from his teaching post at the University of Tubingen in West Germany and silenced for a year Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of Marxist-tinged liberation theology. Last week Rome moved against an American priest who has openly questioned the church's stance on sexual morality. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, revoked the license of the Rev. Charles Curran to teach theology at the Catholic University of America because of the priest's "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches." The Vatican's long-expected crackdown on Curran made it clear that the Pope will not tolerate open dissent on the part of those who claim to be the church's teachers. But some Roman Catholics were alarmed by what they called "creeping infallibilism" in Ratzinger's letter to Curran -- that is, an attempt by Rome to place more and more of its official teachings beyond dispute.

At a Washington press conference last week, Curran insisted that the church, not he, "ultimately should change its teachings" and vowed to fight to retain his position at the university. Archbishop James Hickey of Washington, the chancellor of the university, has set a Sept. 1 deadline for Curran to decide whether to appeal through the school's own grievance procedures.

A tall, spare man who normally dresses in nonclerical clothes, Curran, 52, is probably the best-known Catholic moral theologian in the U.S. today. The author of 16 books and a popular teacher, he has openly questioned the church's stance on contraception, abortion and extramarital sex. Broadly speaking, Catholic teaching holds that these acts are immoral in themselves and can never be allowed. Curran contends that there may be occasions when they are permissible. He also believes Rome should ease its ban on remarriage after divorce.

American reaction to the Vatican measure was sharply divided. Some Catholic liberals, like the Rev. Richard McBrien, chairman of the theology department at the University of Notre Dame, argued that the move would have a chilling effect on theologians, many of whom might leave Catholic colleges for teaching posts at non-Catholic schools. But conservatives hailed the move. James McFadden, lay editor of the conservative monthly Catholic Eye, compared Curran's position with "working for IBM and damning computers."

Rome readily acknowledged Curran's charge that he had been singled out. A Vatican official said it was the "length and breadth and depth" of Curran's dissent that caused him to become the first American to lose his teaching license. In 1968, for example, Curran organized 600 U.S. academic and church professionals to endorse a statement taking issue with Pope Paul VI's condemnation of contraception in the encyclical Humanae vitae.

Curran has defended his dissent on the ground that he is not contravening any infallible dogma, meaning one that is divinely protected from error. Such a teaching -- the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, for example -- differs from what is called the ordinary magisterium, or an authoritative teaching of the church that does not have the certainty of absolute truth. But in his letter to Curran, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that the Second Vatican Council held that any doctrine taught by the Pope and the bishops together in a definitive manner is also to be considered infallible. "The church does not build its life upon its infallible magisterium alone," Ratzinger wrote, "but on the teaching of its authentic, ordinary magisterium as well." Curran claimed that the Vatican was trying to "fudge" the distinction between the two kinds of doctrines and stifle dissent. Asked how much ground is left for disagreement in sexual morality after this decision, a senior Vatican official replied, "Very, very little."

Some U.S. bishops had backed a compromise proposal Curran made to Rome -- namely, that he keep his position but not teach sexual-ethics courses. In fact, he has not offered a class exclusively in sexual morality for 15 years, although he has been a C.U. professor since 1965. Nonetheless, hierarchical support for the disciplinary action was as predictable as the crackdown itself. The Most Rev. Matthew Clark of Rochester, Curran's home diocese, accepted the decision as the "final word" but said Curran "always will be welcome" as a priest in Rochester. Later, a Vatican official said Clark had ! been "excessively tolerant."

The case may have more serious implications for Catholic higher education than the removal of one professor. Church law requires that anyone teaching theology at a Catholic university -- even one not chartered by the Vatican, as C.U. is -- must have an explicit commission from a bishop, called a "canonical mandate." Some legal experts argue that this requirement represents a potential infringement on academic freedom, and if challenged in court, could jeopardize publicly provided funding for Catholic institutions.

Meanwhile, Curran has promised to remain a "loyal and committed Catholic," asking his supporters to stay with him inside the church to continue pressing for the right of intellectual dissent. Perhaps anticipating future battles, he declared, "There's got to be room in the church for disagreement on specific issues . . . My church is a big church, and my God is a big God, yes she is."

With reporting by Sam Allis/Rome and Jim Castelli/Washington