Charles E. CURRAN, Diverse Voices in Modern US Moral Theology. Moral Traditions Series. Georgetown University Press, 2018. Xiii+265$104.95hb; $34.95 pb and E-book. ISBN 9-781626-166325. Reviewed by James T. BRETZKE, S.J., Marquette University, Milwaukee WI, 53233.

Curran considers a dozen moral theologians whom he judges to be of particular importance from roughly 1940 (John C. Ford, SJ) to the present (the New Wineskins collection of younger scholars constituted in 2002). The title can be a bit misleading since two of the twelve chapters deal with non-Americans, but two Germans, Redemptorist Bernard Häring and Jesuit Josef Fuchs, both born in 1912 who spent the bulk of their teaching careers in Rome.  Curran judges his DoktorVater Häring to be the “greatest 20th century moral theologian,” and while “great” is incontestable, it’s logically difficult to prove that Häring would be “greater” than Fuchs, or even a Protestant such as James Gustafson (who was the DoktorVater of two others in the book), and arguably may have played a larger role in American in many ways than either Fuchs or Häring.  Indeed, Curran’s larger approach underlined by his term “Diverse Voices” would seem to suggest that naming any one individual the “greatest” might be a slight “category error” of on Curran’s part.

Any limited collection of twelve involves hard choices, and we realize this is not easy. That being said, however, I would have argued for inclusion of some and exclusion of others as “major” diverse voices.  Similarly, with the exception of Grisez and Cessario the “diversity” factor might be termed “variations on a theme.”  While the increased use of Scripture was recognized as a positive development in post-Vatican II theology in terms of a sustained methodological use of the Bible it is unfortunate that someone like William Spohn, or Stanley Hauerwas wasn’t substituted for the non-Americans.  Hauerwas in particular has played an important part in the understanding of theological ethics of many of the “New Wineskins” cohort that have also been identified by many as “Catholic Hauerwasians.”  Similarly, while seminaries no longer occupy the theological mainstream, “diverse voices” might have suggested the inclusion of authors that are read more in many diocesan seminaries, such as  William E. May, Lawler or Janet Smith, along with Germain Grisez, and Romanus Cessario, O.P. who were included.

Curran speaks of the Sitz im Leben of the individual theologians, but a more appropriate (and less individualistic focus) might be “ethos.”  This fits better with the generations discussed as well, as we can delineate four overlapping groups, stretching from John Ford, Bernard Häring, Josef Fuchs, Richard McCormick, Germain Grisez, and Curran himself, followed next by Margaret Farley, Lisa Sowle Cahill, Romanus Cessario, and Ada Maria Diaz, and then Bryan Massingale and James Keenan (who both overlapped as doctoral students in Rome during my own time there) and finally the New Wineskin cohort.  Each of us of course has our own particular, individual history, but in broad strokes it seems that the shared values and perceptions of a sub-cultural ethos might serve as a better marker.

Curran’s Sitz im Leben of his generation of revisionist moral theologians was marked by the spirit of Vatican II and the ensuing tensions arising from Humanae vitae.  Others might read the tension more broadly as arising from the paradigm shifts the Council brought about and resistance in many quarters, especially in how authority and tradition were understood. 

Throughout, though, Curran is unfailingly balanced and fair—academic qualities his theological opponents often do not exhibit in the same measure. This is laudatory, and most of Curran’s treatment of his selected theologians is expository, with rather limited, deft critiques.  However, some of the critiques could have been deepened.  For example, in treating Grisez, Curran doesn’t really punch out the ramifications for Grisez’s assertion that his “basic goods” are ‘incommensurable’, and therefore cannot be prioritized in a traditional “conflict of duties” moral calculus.  This is a key linchpin of his logical argument, and yet many critics have pointed out that there is very little additional evidence offered to support this novel assertion.  If one questions or denies that assertion, then much of Grisez’s “new natural law theory” collapses.  Similarly, while Curran correctly details Grisez’s very high, almost absolute, faith in the truth of papal magisterium, Curran doesn’t mention Grisez’squite acerbic critique of Pope Francis offered widely via an internet-posted letter in which he claimed the Pope was “self-indulgent enough to take advantage of the opportunity with as little care as he might unburden himself with friends after a good dinner and plenty of wine”

Despite these very limited critical observations, certainly all can profit by Curran’s careful analysis, especially those younger scholars and graduate students who have not lived through as much of the theological Sturm und Drang of the last sixty years.