Last Thursday, I attended Dr. Charles Curran’s public lecture, “The U.S. Catholic Bishops and Abortion Legislation: A Critique from within the Church.”

Curran has been no stranger to controversy within his own church. He is a renowned Catholic scholar, ordained priest and SMU professor. The content of his arguments have been the subject of theological dispute and ecclesial controversy, be it merited or not.

Before the lecture, a group of people funneled into Hughes-Trigg to hear this “dissident” call official Catholic teaching into question. Unfortunately, what seemed to have amassed was a motley crew of zealots from both sides.

On one side were staunch “pro-lifers” with minds made up, ready to excommunicate Curran and to make him a heretic. Rapaciously alongside them were the staunch “pro-choicers,” also with minds made up, ready to crown Curran as their king after he gave the Catholic Church what they saw as an intellectual pile-drive.

It remains unclear as to whether either side was attentive to Curran’s arguments. Both groups, however, were eager to create their own image of Curran.

Essentially, both extremes of the political/religious spectrum hijacked Curran’s scholarship for opportunistic aims.

Contrary to the Nov. 1 editorial published in The Daily Campus, Curran doesn’t oppose the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on abortion. Morally, Curran is opposed to abortion. He does not contest that “under Catholic morality, abortion has never been a choice.”

Neither did he attempt to inextricably “unite pro-choice position with Catholic teaching.” The tenuous mischaracterization asserted in the Nov. 1 editorial failed to recognize Curran’s distinction between the social and moral implications of abortion and between the pro-choice and pro-abortion positions.

What Curran did argue was that the United States Catholic Bishops claim too much “certitude” in their approach to abortion, specifically abortion law (i.e. legal action banning abortion).

The bishops contend that abortion must be staunchly opposed at the ballot box and in the courts, thereby making prudential judgment extraneous in addressing the moral problem of abortion. Curran’s arguments are precisely against these assertions.

However, Curran did not articulate a position that nullified the possible value or importance of an abortion law. He did, however, through the model provided by the Second Vatican Council’s 1965 Declaration on Religious Freedom, rebuke the argument that an abortion law is a requisite element of the legal campaign against the moral evil of abortion.

According to Curran’s account of the religious freedom approach, Catholics could reasonably conclude that abortion should be combated, either through a legal amendment or through reducing root causes like poverty or education, among other approaches. His argument does not require the inclusion of any specific, political component.

By design, his argument incorporates free will and freedom of conscience. Thus, it allows the justification of a Catholic voting for a “pro-choice” candidate if the individual has determined that doing so would best abrogate the occurrence of abortions.

He does not inextricably link Catholic morality, social action or legal advocacy with “pro-choice” public policy.

Certainly, Curran’s arguments do not elude fallibility.

Nonetheless, they are well-formed and honest scholarship. You may disagree with his conclusions, but do not misconstrue his arguments.

Mutilating an argument for one’s own purposes or shaping a point for one’s own goals only serves to perpetuate ignorance, infighting and deceit.

For both factions, his legacy has become a mythical caricature that only exists in the minds of its inventors. We risk remembering this scholar as either prophet or apostate. He is neither.

Personally, like the words of Dallas Bishop Kevin Ferrell’s letter, I pray that, “All people of our country will soon recognize that every human life is a gift to be cherished.” Furthermore, I pray that scholarly debate will be both valued and respected – both in church and state.

Drew Konow is a senior religious studies, foreign languages and literatures  major. He can be reached for comments or questions at [email protected].