Friday, October 29, 2010

About those "Moral Theologians"...

On Tuesday we commented on the CCHD's new funding guidelines, and indicated that we were not impressed by the fact that the CCHD honchos promised to have their funding choices vetted by "moral theologians."

Right on cue, Fr. Charles Curran and Fr. Thomas Resse prove that our concern is not misplaced.

Fr. Curran was giving a lecture at SMU called "The U.S. Catholic Bishops and Abortion Legislation: A Critique From Within the Church." From the Dallas Morning News:

Essentially, (Fr. Charles Curran) said, being in favor of a woman's right to choose is not the same as being pro-abortion.

"God has given human beings our free will. All of us will use free will at times to commit sin," he said. "But God does not advocate sinning."

Of course there is nothing in that argument that is not applicable to other forms of homicide, or to rape, or any other crime. The difference, now, is that the crime of abortion is legal.

Fr. Reese supported Fr. Curran:

"The Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center in Washington D.C., had a chance to read Curran's paper.

'His argument is within the mainstream of current thought by Catholic moral theologians,' Reese said. 'He makes a sophisticated and complex argument that Catholics can disagree over the prudence of various legal approaches to abortion while still holding that abortion is immoral.'"

Yes, it's all so sophisticated.


Bill Meyer said...

And yet, despite these sophisticated arguments, the Catechism is abundantly clear. One can only wonder how rarely these worthies consult that document.

Pat said...

From our web site:

Here’s what Cardinal Dulles had to say about the Catechism and Tom Reese:

A number of theologians gained access to the provisional text of 1989 and voiced their criticisms, predictably negative. Nicholas Lash, writing for the London Tablet, recommended that the draft be rejected, even as a basis for discussion. He added that the Synod of Bishops, at a future meeting, should reconsider the advisability of the whole project. Richard McBrien, with great assurance, told the Philadelphia Inquirer: “The project should be abandoned.” Thomas J. Reese spoke for many progressive theologians when he wrote, in his introduction to a volume of essays on the provisional text:

In my opinion the document needs to be totally rewritten. It cannot be saved by amendments that only tinker with the text. If this were a draft submitted to an ecumenical council, it would deserve an overwhelming “non placet” from the bishops. It is questionable whether a universal catechism is needed at all and whether the papal commission can write one that fulfills the criteria of being faithful to Vatican II or useful for the Church.

Michael said...


CCHD Praised a Grantee Involved in Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual Coalitions and Networks in its “Renewal” Document Where it Promised NOT to Fund Such Groups!!!