1 February 1983

Your Excellency:

We are writing to you concerning a problem that puzzles and distresses many American Catholics. Why, as the representative of the Holy See in our country, have you not taken steps to secure the removal of Father Charles Curran from his professorship in Moral Theology at the Catholic University, in Washington, D.C.? There are countless scandals within the Church in America, but it is not exaggerating to describe the retention of Father Curran as an official teacher of the Church as probably the greatest scandal of all. The Catholic Church in America should be the voice of Christ, teaching His doctrine in His Name. But how can an organization endorsing Father Curran as an official teacher possibly claim to represent Our Lord Jesus Christ? Such a claim must appear to be a blasphemous mockery while Father Curran retains his position at Catholic University, which, moreover, is a Pontifical University. The opinions which Father Curran teaches and endorses do not simply violate the most elementary norms of Catholic sexual ethics, they are repugnant to the entire Judeo-Christian concept of morality. Sincere Jews and Protestants can hardly be expected to take the claims of our Church seriously when a Professor of Moral Theology in a Pontifical University repudiates moral standards which are shared by every decent American, whatever his religious belief. Moreover, Father Curran has achieved the status of a folk hero among certain sections of the Church, not least among religious sisters and seminarians. We are being totally objective in claiming that many of them attach far more weight to his opinions than those of the Pope.

Your Excellency must certainly be aware of the fact that Father Curran was the principal leader and organizer of public dissent from the Encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968. He has made no secret of his role, indeed, he actually boasts of it! Here is Father Curran's own account which was published in the book, Journeys (New York, 1977), edited by Gregory Baum, an ex-priest, and notorious opponent of the same encyclical:

In July rumors began to fly that an encyclical condemning artificial contraception was imminent. I was in frequent contact with colleagues at Catholic University and throughout the country. The strike at Catholic University the year before had the effect of catapulting me into a very prominent leadership role on this question of artificial contraception and the Roman Catholic Church.

We tried in vain to raise enough publicity to prevent the issuance of any encyclical. It was my judgment that an encyclical at that time reaffirming the older teaching would be catastrophic. Many people would think that they could no longer be loyal Roman Catholics because of their decision to practice artificial contraception. Priests would be searching for guidance and would also be thrown into great crises of conscience. I was convinced that most Catholics and priests did not even know about the right to dissent from authoritative, noninfallible, hierarchical teaching. Plans then began to take shape to formulate a response to the encyclical that was rumored to be imminent.

Your Excellency, it is quite incredible that Father Curran should have been allowed to retain his official position after such outrageous behaviour, but we realize that as you were not Delegate at the time, you bear no personal responsibility for this scandal. Since 1968 Father Curran's views have become increasingly more outrageous and offensive. As you well know, the late Bishop Joseph V. Sullivan of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was one of the most outspoken defenders of orthodoxy in America. In February, 1979, he refused Father Curran permission to speak at a diocesan faculty at Louisiana State University. Here are some of the reasons he gave, contrasting the anti-Christian theories of Father Curran with the official teaching of the Church:

Father Curran on abortion:

"...Even in the question of the morality of abortion it is impossible to speak about the Roman Catholic position as if there cannot exist within Catholicism a legitimate dissent from that teaching" (New Perspectives in Moral Theology, 1974, p. 179).

The teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion:

"...Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: 'Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes' (17). The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church 'has not changed and is unchangeable' (18)" (Declaration on Procured Abortion, Section 7).

Father Curran on fornication:

"One cannot brand all pre-marital sex under the same blanket condemnation of fornication. There is quite a bit of difference between sexual relations with a prostitute and with a spouse to be" (Contemporary Problems in Moral Theology, 1970, p. 169).

The teaching of the Catholic Church on fornication:

"...For you can be quite certain that nobody who actually indulges in fornication or impurity or promiscuity—which is worshipping a false god—can inherit anything of the Kingdom of God. Do not let anyone deceive you with empty arguments (Eph. 5:3-8. Cf. 4:18-19)...

"In addition, the Apostle points out the specifically Christian motive for practising chastity when he condemns the sin of fornication not only in the measure that this action is injurious to one's neighbor or to the social order but because the fornicator offends against Christ..." (Declaration on Sexual Ethics, 1975, Section 11).

Father Curran on sterilization:

"I disagree with the past Catholic teaching on sterilization, and maintain that in practice Catholics can dissent from the authoritative Church teaching condemning direct sterilization" (New Persprectives in Moral Theology, 1974, p. 203).

The teaching of the Catholic Church on sterilization:

"...Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman" (Humanae Vitae, 1968, Section 14).

Father Curran on divorce:

"I conclude that the Roman Catholic Chuch should change its teaching and practice on divorce. Divorce and remarriage must be accepted as a reality in our world that at times can take place even without personal guilt on the part of the individuals involved. Indissolubility or permanency is a radical demand of the Gospel that is seen as a goal but not an absolute norm" (New Perspectives in Moral Theology, 1974, pp. 271-272).

The teaching of the Catholic Church on divorce:

"Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom receive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond" (Humanae Vitae, 1968, Section 9).

Despite the fact that what Bishop Sullivan stated here was the clear and consistent teaching of the Church he was subjected to a campaign of public villification which indicates the alarming extent to which the theories of Father Curran have won uncritical support within the Church. All the Claretian Fathers in the University chaplaincy had to be dismissed by the bishop when they gave public support to Father Curran. The lack of support which Bishop Sullivan received from his fellow bishops was a scandal in itself, but not surprising in view of the fact that many of them, such as Archbishop May of St. Louis, not only permit Father Curran to speak in their dioceses but defend him publicly. It must have been a considerable consolation for Bishop Sullivan to receive the support of the Holy See. A letter from Archbishop Jerome Hamer, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Father, dated 24 April 1979, stated:

Your Excellency:

Your recent pastoral decision to refuse the use of diocesan facilities for a talk by the Rev. Charles Curran at the University of Louisiana in Baton Rouge together with your public statement explaining your reason for this decision, have both been brought to the attention of this Congregation.

Please accept my personal thanks for providing public clarification of some of the ambiguous and erroneous teachings of Father Curran.

In 1977, the Paulist Press of Paramus, New Jersey, published a report entitled Human Sexuality, which had been commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America. It might well have been commissioned by the American Humanist Association or any other militantly anti-Christian group. The book constitutes an open assault upon basic standards of decency without which our society would certainly fall apart. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine issued a statement in November, 1977, warning against the errors of the book, and in 1979, it was condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but, incredibly, its authors were allowed to continue teaching in Catholic institutions. In allowing them to do so the American bishops not only rendered their own criticisms of the book meaningless, but displayed the most blatant contempt for the decision of the Sacred Congregation. Some individual bishops, to their great credit, forbade the use of the book in their own diocese—Cardinal Carberry being the most notable example. In his book, Battle for the American Church, Msgr. George T. Kelley wrote (on page 105):

The consultors for this particular book may be more important than the co-authors, who are generally unknown. But consultors Gregory Baum, Charles E. Curran, and Richard McCormick, S.J., are widely known, and each of them, in his own way, has pioneered in the effort to reshape the authentic moral doctrine of the Church. Human Sexuality puts their moral theologies together and offers pastoral guidelines to the Catholic faithful.

The views expressed in Human Sexuality are morally irresponsible, shocking, and not fit for reprinting in our magazine. It is inconceivable that anyone with a shred of Catholic education could possibly hold any of the conclusions expressed in this book. However, we have every right to conclude that Father Curran does endorse them.

Your Excellency, Msgr. McCarthy, an orthodox American theologian, has described these views as "not theological but pornological." It seems quite fair to describe Father Curran not as a theologian but as a pornologian. The influence of this pornologian is not confined to America. In 1981 he was invited to "up-date" English priests on moral theology. When indignant British Catholics complained to their bishops they were informed that: "Father Curran is an accredited theologian in a Catholic institute of good standing." In other words, the fact that he is allowed to retain his official position at Catholic University is used as a justification for allowing him to propagate his pornology whenever he feels inclined.

Your Excellency, we feel bound to state with the deepest respect that you bear a heavy responsibility for the continuing presence of Charles Curran at Catholic University, for the increasingly widespread dissemination of his immoral and anti-Catholic views, and for the harm that this is doing to souls. You certainly have the power to have him removed. If you present the facts to the Pope, and the Holy Father gives a direct order to Catholic University to dismiss him, we are sure that it would do so, albeit reluctantly. We have little doubt that even if Father Curran were deprived of the right to teach as an accredited Catholic theologian, as was the case with Hans Küng, he would continue to spread his errors and to receive acclaim from many within the Church, but at least he would not be doing so as an accredited Catholic spokesman. We therefore beg Your Excellency to make the removal of Charles Curran from the Professorship of Moral Theology at the Catholic University, Washington, D.C., one of your first priorities, for the good of souls and the honor of Holy Mother Church.

We remain your obedient servants.

The Editors.

The Most Reverend Pio Laghi
The Apostolic Delegation
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008