Mahony Assails Censured Priest’s Views

In the first face-to-face response by an American bishop to Father Charles E. Curran since the theologian was censured by the Vatican, Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahony on Thursday challenged Curran’s views of authority and dissent in the Roman Catholic Church.

Theologians who propose their personal theories as “pastoral practice” tread on teaching rights held exclusively by bishops, Mahony said in a discussion with Curran at USC before a turnaway crowd of 1,500 at Bovard Auditorium.

“I believe that in these cases the theologian or theologians have seriously moved beyond their role of ‘theologian’ and have usurped the role of ‘pastor’ held by the bishops and the Pope,” said Mahony, who is known for his firmly conservative doctrinal positions.

Curran, a tenured professor of moral theology at Catholic University of America in Washington, said that some “non-infallible” church teachings in the past have turned out to be in error. He cited several examples, including the church’s 14th-Century teaching that severely condemned the charging of interest and its 1866 view that slavery could be in accord with divine law. Thus, church teaching authority “is not ultimate but must conform itself to the truth,” Curran said.

Neither speaker referred specifically to Curran’s views on sexual ethics that brought him into conflict with the Vatican. After 20 years of investigation, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in August stripped Curran of his right to teach Catholic theology. Catholic University is a papally charted school directly under the authority of Pope John Paul II.

Curran has said that neither contraception nor sterilization is “intrinsically evil” and that under limited circumstances, abortion, homosexual acts, masturbation, premarital sex, divorce and euthanasia--all officially banned or condemned by the Church--are justified.

Mahony said the church differs significantly from secular institutions. Its teachings, he said, spring from divine revelation and are not “a process of trial and error. Although debate and exploration surely have their place in the church, the church is not a debating club or a society of explorers.”

“The church, if it is to stand for anything, has to have some common doctrine that is respected and put into practice by its members.”

In an apparent reference to Curran’s high visibility as a dissenter through media exposure and writings, Mahony declared that church authorities “might have good reason for placing restrictions on persons who try to use their position in the church to gain credibility for the opposition.

“When certain Catholic theologians confidently assert that Popes and bishops are teaching error, they appear to put their own judgment above that of the hierarchical magisterium (teaching authority of the church hierarchy) and in so doing inevitably discredit the latter.”

Mahony and Curran both cited church history and early documents of the Christian faith in their talks. They agreed that faithful Catholics owe religious and intellectual assent to authoritative church teachings, not just those considered “infallible,” or unquestionably true, by edict of a Pope. They also agreed that theologians should be free to investigate religious truth.

But the clergymen differed sharply on the manner and limits of dissent.

“Even theologians in university situations are likely to be over-influenced by the reigning ethos of academic freedom,” said Mahony, spiritual leader of 2.6 million Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. “It therefore becomes more necessary than ever for the church to have firm authority structures so as to preserve its rich and ancient heritage and to address new problems in the light of Christ.”

Mahony said it would be an oversimplification to say that Catholics are required to submit to every teaching statement of church authorities. But they are “expected to give . . . internal and external, private and public, assent to magisterial teaching that is clearly within time-honored tradition.”

Although dissent at times may be justified, Mahony added, the justification “will be more difficult if the doctrine is taught by high authority, with great emphasis and deliberation,” such as a papal encyclical intended to end previous controversy.

‘Centrality of Faith’

Curran argued that Catholic theology has always recognized that there are levels of importance to items of Catholic faith.

“Some things are core and central to the faith, whereas others are more removed from the centrality of faith,” Curran said.

In Curran’s opinion, his dissent on sexual ethics lies outside that center core.

“My disagreements with official church teaching are all on very complex issues and at a level of great specificity. For example . . . the followers of Jesus should be faithful, loving, caring, just and chaste. But what does justice or chastity mean in certain complex, specific circumstances?” he asked.

More than 750 members of two U.S. Catholic theological societies have signed a statement supporting Curran’s right to dissent on non-infallible church teachings.

Recent surveys show that a majority of U.S. Catholics disagree sharply with official church teachings on issues such as divorce, contraception, women’s ordination and women priests.

In his talk, Curran noted that “theology and theologians will make mistakes” and that the church’s hierarchical teaching office “must encourage the creative fidelity of theologians.”

But, he added, the magisterium “by definition will tend to lag behind the theological enterprise. History reminds us of the truth and tensions of this reality.”

The audience applauded when Curran said: “There will always be some tension in the church precisely because no one in the church--Pope or theologian--has a monopoly on the (Holy) Spirit, who is the primary teacher.”

Since Monday, Curran has been lecturing at the USC School of Religion, sponsor of the Mahony-Curran panel.