|
The first part of this entry from February 12 can be read in its entirety by scrolling down beneath today’s entry of February 19. References are to Loyal Dissent unless otherwise indicated.
___________________ THE ROLLER COASTER OF 1967 AND 1968: On April 17, 1967, Father Charles Curran was informed by his employer, The Catholic University of America, that his application for promotion had been rejected and that his employment at CUA was terminated. Why he was fired is rather simple to explain, on one level. Some of the members of the CUA board of trustees, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, were disturbed by allegations that Father Curran was teaching heresy at the only Pontifical University in the United States. Recall that the Bishop of Rochester, New York had released Father Curran for approximately the same reasons just two years earlier. No one has ever proved that most U.S. bishops wished for Curran’s firing. The decision was not made by the full body of bishops in an annual meeting. The actual vote, by a representative group of the USCCB, was 28-1 against Curran. The dissenting vote came from the much-respected Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta. At the time of the vote, Curran had lectured at CUA for just two years. From a distance it seems unusual to build such ecclesiastical animus in that relatively brief period. As I noted in Part 1, some of the complaints about Curran to Cardinal O’Boyle were, at the least, eccentric. On the other hand, the moral professor was making a name for himself in his teaching and public speaking. He published Christian Morality Today [1966, revised 1971] and contributed to several national Catholic academic journals. He recruited friends in the field to apply to teach at Catholic University. Again, from the first post, my own collegiate theological advisor in seminary utilized Curran’s theology in my personal/professional guidance. What those on the USCCB overlooked was the atmosphere at Catholic University, a subtle but growing alienation of the faculty from its overlords. Of course, in the unsettled 1960’s, Catholic University was hardly the only school with issues. Recall Columbia University in 1968. When Curran was released by the university, he made a public statement that due process had been denied him, a brilliant tactical move which took the issue from religious controversy to civil rights. Curran’s claim was, in fact, true. His theological department had voted unanimously for his advancement just weeks before, and the USCCB override brought the entire lay faculty into solidarity with their religious counterparts. Within hours. emergency meetings of faculty and students were held. A campus-wide strike was called for full reinstatement of Curran, with general faculty voting 400-18 to support the theology faculty. Between 3000 and 4000 students and supporters rallied peacefully in support of Curran. The CUA standoff became national news on such media arms as The New York Times and Time Magazine. In his autobiography Curran admits that there was concern over how long the siege could last, so to speak, [p. 38] But as he recalls, the USCCB was under much greater pressure, and its senior members such as Cardinals Lawrence Sheehan of Baltimore and Richard Cushing of Boston criticized the vote against him. Finally, senior members of the university’s administration met with Washington’s Cardinal O’Boyle and reversed its previous ruling. Curran was promoted to associate professor effective in September 1967 and would serve the University until the Vatican examined his works in 1986. [See below.] In the narrative of the 1967 events, Curran notes that over the years he has learned more of the internal discussions of his case, but that some minutes of meetings in the university archives have been put off limits to more recent historians. [pp. 43-47] Curran had been on record as calling for a reexamination of the Church’s teaching against artificial birth control as taught by Pope Pius XI in 1930. With the availability of the birth control pill since 1960, there was hope among many that the teaching might be altered or reversed. However, on July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae [“on human life”] which maintained that all acts of marital intercourse must be open to the conception of human life. I reread the encyclical this morning and came away again, as I have in the past, with the sense that Pope Paul was trying to salvage the authority of the papacy as well as address procreative principles. This is unfortunate, because the document addresses a variety of valid concerns over which there were minimal disagreements. The pope had strong words for countries [notably China] where centralized government limited the size of families, and for marriages where husbands demanded sex from their wives without consent—an unfortunate common occurrence which we correctly address as “marital rape” today. The efforts of the American hierarchy to enforce the pope’s teaching were very uneven. For Father Curran, some of the pressures must have seemed like déjà vu of the previous year, except that in 1968 the ax of obedience hung over the heads of all priests, and particularly of teachers of morality in colleges and seminaries—and certainly the theology faculty of the Catholic University of America. At least in 1968 he had much more company in the foxhole. But Curran was instrumental in organizing a nationwide statement of disapproval of Humanae Vitae from 87 of the country’s prominent Catholic theologians, the “87” became something of a slogan; eventually Curran’s name would become the handle for professional dissent. Eventually 600 professional Catholic leaders would sign the statement. Penalties for dissent were sporadic and often implemented reluctantly. Some bishops realized that there was no way to enforce the teaching among the faithful per se. What individuals chose to disclose or withhold in the confessional was ultimately an exercise of personal conscience. Could a priest ask a penitent about contraception in the confessional? I can say that in my own seminary education we were never told to pry about anything in our function as confessors; later I learned that St. Alphonsus Ligouri and St. John Vianney, two famous confessors, held the same positions. With this in mind, it is easier to understand why, collectively, the bishops wished that priests—particularly the theologians—vigorously upheld Humanae Vitae rather than publicly question it. In the Washington, D.C. archdiocese, Cardinal O’Boyle revoked the faculties of forty of his diocesan priests who publicly dissented from the encyclical. In 1971 the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome intervened with O’Boyle, who invited the priests back to full service. Only 19 remained; the others had left the priesthood. Father Curran and his colleagues fell under the civil discipline of the university, a prolonged [“glacial,” in Curran’s words] series of hearings and assessments by university officials and then by the trustees, the body of the USCCB or United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The hearings were still in progress when I showed up at CUA’s school of philosophy in September 1969. The bottom line: dissent from non-infallible teaching was tolerated, but faculty members were [forbidden? Advised not to?] make their dissent public. It was an awkward conclusion, but Curran and his colleagues were not disciplined…except for their lawyers’ fees. In concluding Chapter 3, Curran reflects upon his role as the public “dissident of the Church,” and 1967 and 1968 were difficult for him but the circumstances left him little choice but to stand on principle. [pp. 67-69] It does occur to me in 2026 that the principle of synodality—scorned by some, ignored by many bishops—may save us from future theological showdowns. We cannot ignore that, for example, 83% of practicing Catholics in the United States favor the use of artificial contraception, per the 2024 PEW Research survey. That cannot be laid at the doorstep of poor old Charlie Curran. Moral theology, like all academic disciplines, falls under the rigors of academic research, but the task is harder here because of the faith element. Curran devotes several chapters to laying out his methodology [see Chapters 4 and 7 through 10]. He cites the principles that guided his work early in Chapter 4: “The principal aspects of my developing methodology were the importance of historical consciousness, the recognition of historical development in many teachings and the influence of outmoded biological understandings of human sexuality, the need for a critical evaluation of the experience of Christian people, and the problematic aspects of the neo-scholastic understanding of natural law.” [p. 72] Curran argues that the Church must consider “historical consciousness” or the thinking at the time a principle was first codified. This is obvious in Old Testament morality, which permitted fathers to put recalcitrant daughters to death and to stone homosexuals, to cite just two examples. St. Thomas Aquinas, the man at the heart of medieval morality, held that the sex of a fetus was assigned naturally in males after forty days, and females after 80-90 days in the womb. Medical knowledge in the twenty-first century, particularly in the realm of reproductive medicine but also in psychotropic medicine and other fields, can bring significant information to moral puzzles. As a psychotherapist myself, I often think about the moral impact of commonly used mood stabilizers and other drugs. If an angry or destructive individual softens his stance toward others after taking Prozac/fluoxetine, just to cite one drug, are we looking at a moral reform or a chemical alteration? A HIGH PRICE TO PAY After the confrontations of 1967 and 1968, Curran enjoyed both a high degree of respect from most of his academic and theological peers at Catholic University and opposition from those whose tactics exceeded the normal extension of peer review. The years leading up to 1986 were filled with classes and dissertation supervision, requests for lectures around the country, and prodigious writing—multiple books, journals, and contributions to the prestigious Theological Studies, published by the Jesuits. As the author notes in Chapter 4, the academic landscape around theology was changing over the 1970’s and 1980’s. Pope John Paul II was elected in 1978, and he appointed the theologian and archbishop Joseph Ratzinger [the future Pope Benedict XVI] Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Together they sought to reinforce doctrinal discipline around the world, targeting theologians of note whose teachings were viewed by the Vatican as beyond the pale of official Church doctrine. Curran received notification as early as 1979 that his works were under review in Rome, and over the next several years he received correspondence requesting more detail. Curran objected—as he had years earlier—about the absence of due process. But under Ratzinger the Holy Office was determined to bring into line the scholars shaping the cutting edge of contemporary moral theology. Several American theologians, colleagues of Curran, had their works publicly cited as beyond Roman Catholic teaching; some lost teaching positions in Catholic institutions. In 1984 Curran, along with Hans Kung of Switzerland and two others, was cited for “robbing the encyclical [Humanae Vitae] of its intended effect by [his] dissent. [p. 112] Loyal Dissent goes into considerable detail about the charges against the author, as well as the friends, churchmen, and colleagues who supported him. [Hans Kung, who had been stripped of his faculties to teach as a Catholic theologian, flew to Washington to console Curran.] On July 25, 1986, Pope John Paul II signed a letter to Curran stating that “one who dissents from the Magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology.” Put simply, the pope had revoked the priest’s right to teach theology for any Catholic institution around the world. Curran would appear on “Meet the Press” on the following Sunday to explain his reasoning not to recant his position on due process owed to theologians, but the game was up. Chapter 6 describes Curran’s subsequent civil suit against CUA, arguing that the university, as a civil chartered university, had violated his rights by breaking his contract. The court ruled against him on February 28, 1989. WHAT NEXT? The Vatican’s ruling against him did not in any way invalidate his teaching degrees. His doctorate in theology, for example, was still civilly valid. Thus, any non-Catholic institution of higher learning could offer him a position, and this is what happened in 1987 when Cornell University of the Ivy League offered him a one-year position as holder of the Kanab Chair in Catholic Studies, endowed by a Catholic donor on the board of trustees. Cornell, incidentally, is in the Catholic Diocese of Rochester, where Curran was ordained and remains incardinated, as far as I know. [I should explain here that many excellent non-Catholic colleges and universities—state and private--offer courses and degrees in Catholic studies, and it goes without saying that Catholic bishops have no legal right to interfere with such employment. One of my Catholic colleagues years ago—a teacher in a Catholic high school—had earned her degree at Vanderbilt.] The following year Curran taught at Southern Cal University—yes, the school with the football team. His next year found him at Auburn—yes, the school with the football team. [I have never researched whether the Tigers and the Trojans ever played each other in football during Curran’s tenure at either school.] By this time, however, the traveling professor was looking to set roots for a long-term professorship and residence. Southern Methodist University, as it turned out, had its eye on the former Catholic University professor for some time. Except for opposition from the Dallas Catholic bishop that was quickly put to bed by SMU’s governing hierarchy, Curran was offered a tenured position which allowed him the opportunity to teach, research, write, and honor invitations to lecture. Is there anything odd about a Catholic priest theologian unpacking his library and suitcase for a long term stay at a Methodist University? Not at all. Over the twentieth century Catholic and other Christian theologians came to appreciate—in scholarly circles, at least—that their research and propositions were bringing them closer together; they were, in many cases, looking for answers to the same question. [Pope Pius’ 1943 instruction allowed Catholic Biblical scholars to interact with Protestant Biblical scholars on methods of Biblical study.] Curran’s historical background in Catholic moral studies would have been invaluable to his colleagues. The reverse was also true: Curran received at SMU what every academic must have for credibility: peer review from fellow faculty and researchers. This is probably a primary reason why Curran wished to settle in a long-term residence near other working theologians. In recent years, since about 2000, I have not been able to stay afloat with Curran’s most recent writings except for occasional journal pieces. However, in general, I have the impression that moral theology as a faith discipline has evolved in all Christian traditions, toward Biblical, political, and social concerns. I also sense that the best Catholic students of theology are lay, not clerics, studying in “safe havens,” i.e., away from Catholic denominational schools. Massimo Fagioli, professor at Vilanova in 2024, produced an excellent book on the future of religion in the classrooms of our colleges and universities. [See my review here.] The last three moral books I read were written by women scholars. The same is true of Biblical studies. Times are changing. When historians look back a century from now, I believe they will evaluate the role of Charles Curran and his works on morality as a major factors in a transitional time, between excessive legalism and a new age of subjective human acceptance of the Word of God and the pillar of a new morality structure, a greater sensitivity to Jesus’ command, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Good health to you, Father Curran, and thanks.
0 Comments
The Catholic theologian Charles E. Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, came into my life at a time when I needed direction. I was a college seminary freshman during the 1966-1967 school year, a time of immense turmoil across the Church in the United States. Vatican II [1962-1965] was just completed, and to be frank, few people in church authority anywhere had a clear picture or plan of how to adjust the catechesis and practices of the Church to the new mentality of the Council. My freshman year of college seminary religion was, truthfully, a mishmash from a professor who knew in his heart that the ecclesiastical times were a ‘Changin”, as Bob Dylan was singing at the time, but he was not either comfortable with or significantly read in the “new morality” as it emanated from Catholic academia in Europe or the United States. I knew something was wrong or different, that I was changing at 18, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. I stopped going to confession as a college freshman. A cluster of us classmates talked about it one time, and we had lost our reason[s] for going to confession. To use a phrase common at the time, “I didn’t get anything out of it anymore.” I was in grad school some years later, and I came to realize that the 2-week confessional practice was a holdover from the old school manualist approach to the Sacrament of Penance. When I returned to my seminary in the fall of 1967 as a college sophomore, I was surprised to discover that there had been a major turnover in the faculty; four newly ordained friar priests arrived who were well-versed in advances of the post-Conciliar Church, particularly in theology and liturgy. One of them, Father Adrian Porter, became our theology professor and walked us through the development of twentieth century Catholic theology in many of its subdisciplines—among them Scripture, Liturgy, and of considerable interest, moral theology. Before I went home for Thanksgiving, I scheduled an appointment with him to help me wrap my head around the “changes in the Church.” I come from a large family which in the late sixties was all over the map on the Catholic situation. Father Adrian and I spent two hours together, and he helped me to reset my moral compass and reasoning, so to speak. And one name from that conversation remains with me to this day: Charles Curran. WHO IS FATHER CHARLES CURRAN? As of this writing Father Curran is 93 years old and is listed as Elizabeth Scurlock University Chair emeritus of Human Values at Southern Methodist University. I am presently reviewing Father Curran’s autobiography, Loyal Dissent [2006], which outlines a rather remarkable personal and professor life as one of American Catholicism’s most visible, if not always welcome, priest, teacher, researcher, and author throughout the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. Young Charles progressed through the seminary system of the Diocese of Rochester until his bishop, in 1955, assigned him to study at the North American College in Rome. This was not uncommon, as bishops needed priests with Roman pedigree to teach in their diocesan seminaries and serve as canonists in Diocesan marriage tribunals, etc. In his autobiography Curran writes that “I went to Rome in September 1955 and returned for good in 1961. I left Rochester a very convinced, happy, and traditional pre-Vatican II Catholic. I came back, even before Vatican II, recognizing the need for a change and reform in the church. What transpired in Rome? Looking back on it, there were no lightning strikes, but some significant events and people there changed my understanding. [p. 7] It should be noted here that Curran’s classes in Rome were taught in Latin, the custom of the time. He observes in an aside that “the notes of the professor became notes of the pupil without passing through the minds of either!” [p. 7] Absenteeism was something of a European student fixture. Curran, at this juncture, had no intention of specializing in moral theology, but he was, in fact, ordered to stay in Rome by his Rochester bishop to complete his doctorate in that field. He began to rub elbows with moralists in Rome, including the Jesuit Franz Hurth, the reputed ghostwriter for Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii, which forbade artificial birth control, and similarly ghosted Pius XII’s moral teachings. Hurth and Curran frequently conversed on moral questions, and in one such instance Curran asked why the Church forbade artificial insemination even when the sperm was the husband’s and the instrument was the Doyle cervical spoon, a device invented in the late 1940’s to ensure better passage of sperm to the cervix. Curran observed that the Doyle device, as he understood it then, increased the odds of a successful conception in a couple that clearly embraced a sacramental end [then the sacramental end!] of marriage, i.e., creating new life. “A few years later I came to the conclusion that [Hurth’s] approach was a good example of the problem of physicalism, whereby one ‘absolutized’ the physical act of marriage.” [p. 9] As it turned out, Hurth told Curran that the Doyle aid was “an American issue and I’m not going to get involved in it.” The Vatican has never commented on the Doyle device, which can be purchased today on Amazon Prime well over a half century after the young Curran inquired about it. We all have had moments where insights or experiences have altered our life direction to some degree. Curran did not embrace an academic career when he began his studies, but his immersion in moral theology, as in his lessons from Hurth and other professionals in the moral field, later coupled with Vatican II’s teachings on spiritual renewal and engagement with the other disciplines, focused him on the need for a revision of the principles of moral theology. After his ordination in 1958, he had the good fortune of taking courses and other opportunities at the Pontifical Alphonsian Academy, founded by the Redemptorists to nurture the spirituality and moral outlook of the Order’s founder, St. Alphonsus Ligouri. One of the pivotal works on the renewal of Catholic moral theology in the twentieth century was written in 1954, the three-volume The Law of Christ, by the Redemptorist Father Bernard Haring. [I reviewed Father Haring’s 1998 autobiography and his book makes a good companion piece to Father Curran’s autobiography.] Of Father Haring, Curran has this to say: “Bernard Haring had the most significant influence on my thought…Haring’s holistic approach brought together morality, spirituality, scripture, and the sacraments.” [p. 14] There is a story that when Haring was a young priest in the 1930’s, his superiors ordered him to seek a doctorate in moral theology. Haring protested on the grounds that moral theology, as taught and enforced by the Church then, was too legal and stale. He asked to be sent to the foreign missions! His superior replied, “If you feel this way about Catholic morality, then stay and fix it.” Curran completed his own graduate studies and authored his dissertation on “The Concept of Invincible Ignorance in Alphonsus Ligouri.” The topic was reflective of the time [1960], bringing back memories of the late medieval preoccupation of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Curran writes that the biggest lesson of the dissertation was the intense animosity between the new school moralists and the traditional moralists in Rome; during his oral defense, two of his judges got into a heated argument and consumed nearly all of Curran’s time. An interesting sidebar: Curran’s opponent in the dissertation defense later took him out to lunch and counseled him on how to teach in his home diocesan seminary, St. Bernard’s in Rochester, a school with a very conservative reputation in the United States. His advice: “teach in Latin. That’s all anyone will talk about.” The ploy worked…for a while. THE PILL: Curran returned to the United States and began teaching seminarians in the fall of 1961. He taught a wide range of courses, integrating into his work the trends in theology he had absorbed in Rome. His students were divided in their reception of his teaching, falling along progressive/conservative lines. Some of the St. Bernard faculty welcomed his novel [to them] theological content. Much was transpiring beyond the gates of St. Bernard’s, however. In 1960 the United States FDA approved the oral contraceptive Enovid for general use. “The pill” posed a challenge for Church teaching, as it was the first contraceptive which did not act as an overt barrier to intercourse nor did it intrude upon natural male-female intercourse. Curran had found, in his Roman research, that the Church’s present-day understanding of science was weak, in some cases resting upon principles from the medieval era. He was not the first theologian to call for a change in the Church’s contraceptive ban; Father Louis Janssens of Louvain argued for acceptance of the pill but not other forms of contraception. Curran had begun writing for Catholic publications—this was a heyday era for the Catholic press—and then, consequently, to receive speaking invitations. Most notable was an invitation from Harvard to speak on the role of conscience; the school was looking for a Catholic scholar to present a newer approach to moral theology. It speaks volumes that Harvard turned to a 29-year-old seminary professor from Rochester to learn how Catholic theologians were facing the challenges of the future. After some anguish of decision, Curran agreed, and presented “The Problem of Conscience and the Twentieth Century Christian.” Curran had wisely, in my view, not imitated Janssens in defending the pill on a technicality. Rather, he laid out a broader series of questions that thoughtful Catholics—not just academics and cardinals but certainly including them—would all need to address going into the future [1] The lived experience of Catholics—in this context, married Catholics—needed to be considered and taken seriously in authoritative Catholic moral teaching. To say, on record, that laity belonged in the discernment of Church teaching was stunning to hear. Many Catholics at the time thought this was precisely the Lutheran heresy. We were now in unfamiliar territory that went far beyond the pill, though Enovid lit the fuse. [2] Going back to his dissertation experience, Curran highlighted how present-day Church moralists in Rome labored under woefully inadequate understandings of science in formulating moral principles. [3] “Moral judgement is the ultimate human judgment, bringing together all the partial aspects—be they sociological, psychological, eugenic, hygienic, and so on.” [p. 22] [4] …” Church teaching had changed on some issues in the past and could change here as well.” [p. 22] The content of this presentation seemed to capture the imagination and affirmation of many priests and academics, not to mention even some bishops. Notably, Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston invited Curran to give eight lectures to all the priests in his diocese. He received invitations to speak at or even to teach at the Catholic University of America, my alma mater. Curran’s bishop, James E. Kearney, would not release him from St. Bernard’s, however. St. Bernard’s, however, was growing more troubled about Curran’s theological orientation. He was advised to “tone it down.” His bishop allowed him to write for academic journals but not for popular Catholic reading by the faithful. Finally, in the summer of 1965 Curran was released [ecclesiastical firing] from his teaching at St. Bernard and then quickly hired by Catholic University. What made the Rochester bishop change his mind? The author is not totally certain, but from his account I have to wonder [1] if the neighboring Bishop of Syracuse—whose seminarians attended St. Bernard’s—threatened to pull his future priests from St. Bernard’s, or [2] the Rochester Bishop wanted Curran out of his diocese, period. Washington, D.C., was far enough away. Curran, incidentally, offered to remain in Rochester as a parish priest, but the bishop was adamant he report to CUA and move to the nation’s capital.. Equally intriguing is Curran’s rapid hiring at Catholic University. CUA is a Pontifical University—an extension of the Church’s universal teaching authority, so to speak. Its board of directors is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. On the face of it, Curran would not have been a good fit at CUA, any more than he was for the Bishop of Rochester. But there were other considerations, The 1960’s were not kind to CUA—my own religious order joined with about six others in D.C. to form the Washington Theological Coalition in 1968, my future graduate alma mater [1971-1974], a free standing, chartered and accredited theology school which offered master’s degrees in theology by pulling together the best scholars in each order. As a later student myself, I was much happier studying theology at the WTC [later WTU], having previously graduated from CUA’s School of Philosophy. CUA, in my time, could not decide whether to cling to the past or explore the future, academically speaking. The WTC had set its face for Jerusalem, so to speak, and prepared us as best it could for the priesthood that would be needed in the generations ahead. At the WTC we read Curran’s books—he was a prolific author by then—and at least once in my tenure he came to the Franciscan house of studies, Holy Name, and lead us in an evening of prayer and recollection. Once established at CUA in the fall of 1965, Curran taught a modest classroom schedule and directed dissertations. In 1966 he used the research of one such dissertation as the basis for an address to the Catholic Theological Society of America: on the question of whether masturbation, in and of itself, constituted objectively grave matter, i.e., mortal sin. Curran believed it did not. The topic itself could have been treated in 1856 as well as 1966, a relic of the old manual style moral theology. Interestingly, proving Curran’s point about development in moral theology, I myself would disagree with Curran’s 1966 judgment. Masturbation brought on by fantasies of child abuse or the degradation of women or vulnerable individuals I would consider grave matter…and matters of mental health concern as well as religious morality. For contrasts in theological generations, I am including a link to the 2026 CTSA Convention, sixty years after Curran’s paper at the same convention. Talk about culture shock. In his autobiography Curran takes time to explain to readers his theories and structures of the discipline of moral theology. If you never had a college level course in Catholic morality---which is, sadly, very possible today--it is an opportunity to understand the theological evolution of the post-Vatican II years. Every theological discipline in the Church, from Liturgy to Law, has advanced, certainly not without objection or mistakes, nor without suffering, which would find Father Curran soon enough. Catholic University, located in Washington, is situated in the Archdiocese of Washington. In 1966 the archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle, received information about, and I am not kidding, “the masturbation lecture” cited above. A letter to O’Boyle from an influential priest stated that “this paper, without doubt, will induce thousands of young persons to masturbate without any qualm of conscience. Among these will be priests and clerics and nuns. And, of course, Father Curran will appear to be backed up by the Catholic University of America.” [p. 35] There is an amusing element to the correspondent’s line of reasoning about teens exhausting themselves after a CTSA academic paper, a society that admits only Ph.D.’s. [I applied, once, and was sent a list of the prerequisites.] But O’Boyle brought the matter to the Board of Trustees and Curran’s work came under scrutiny. Or, perhaps more accurately, the discussion centered on how to dismiss him. Curran did not have tenure at the time and had applied for renewal of his contract. On April 10, 1967, the board of trustees voted against renewing Curran’s contract. Curran was informed a week later of his dismissal, but he responded that the procedure was secretive and dishonest, that there was no due process, and that he was prepared to go public with his case. Within several days, the Case of Father Charles Curran and the Catholic University of America would become national news. To be continued….February 16 |
MORALITYArchives
February 2026
|
RSS Feed