Rev. Robert A. Wild, S.J.
President
Marquette University

Dear Father Wild:

In your letter dated October 6, 2006, responding to the Cardinal Newman Society's serious concerns about the pro-abortion advocacy and misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine by Marquette theologian Daniel Maguire, you admitted to the "apparent incongruity" of Maguire's position at a Catholic university despite his publication and advocacy of positions "not totally consonant with Catholic teaching."

It is disappointing that your characterization of Maguire's public teaching would be so understated, given the scandal and dreadful consequences that result. Maguire has dedicated much of his "scholarly" activity to the argument that Catholic teaching allows for abortion, contraceptive use and homosexual "marriage," contrary to the Church's infallible teaching.

Marquette's failure to address these scandals "is simply an instance of what must be done when an institution makes a commitment to academic freedom," you wrote. You disputed the view that "Catholic colleges ought to remain completely and fully in accord with the Magisterium," outrageously comparing St. Thomas Aquinas' approach to Catholic theology—which was controversial but did not dissent from Catholic doctrine—to Maguire's falsification of Catholic teaching to support the killing of preborn children. You could see "no way of resolving these problems that people have with Dr. Maguire."

We now repeat our plea that you take appropriate action consistent with Canon law and the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex corde Ecclesiae, in light of the action last week by the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Although the bishops commented only on particular pamphlets published by Maguire on abortion, contraception and homosexual "marriage," the pamphlets' content is typical of Maguire's teaching over the span of many years. The Daniel Maguire scandals must end.

Contrary to your claims that the bishops support your relaxed acceptance of theological dissent, the USCCB Doctrine Committee—echoing concerns previously expressed by Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan—declared that Maguire's teachings "cross the legitimate lines of theological reflection and simply enter into the area of false teaching." There is a vast difference between the bishops' conclusion and your characterization of Maguire's teachings as "not totally consistent with Catholic teaching."

Marquette's response to the bishops' censure has been to assent to the censure while denying responsibility for the problem. This response is inadequate and dishonest. Maguire is personally responsible for falsely declaring abortion rights, homosexual "marriage" and other serious sins to be acceptable in Catholic teaching, but Marquette University is responsible for presenting Maguire to students and the general public as an expert in moral theology and ethics. Marquette gives Maguire the legitimacy he needs to publicly undermine the Church and secure frequent media appearances.

Maguire's public teachings are not unrelated to his faculty position. They represent the primary emphasis of Maguire's "scholarly" work. In Maguire's online biographical summary, Marquette highlights his book Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religions (Oxford University Press, 2003), and links to the website of his advocacy group, The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics. There Maguire's faculty position at Marquette is prominently identified among materials advocating abortion rights.

Marquette employs Maguire as an expert theologian despite his repeated violations of the principles and methods of Catholic theology. "[S]ince theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the Bishops of the Church, it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic discipline that theologians respect the authority of the Bishops, and assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught" (Ex corde Ecclesiae, 29). Students can rightly question why a Catholic university's theology department includes a former priest who falsifies Catholic teaching and disputes infallible doctrine as the basis of his scholarly work.

With the proper resolve, Marquette University can find ways to end or at least diminish the scandals without violating Maguire's contractual rights. Consider, for instance, the decision of Duquesne University in 2001 to transfer a dissenting tenured professor from the theology department to a university center for social and public policy. A lesser action might be to assign Maguire a faculty title that clearly identifies him as a non-Catholic theologian and to ensure that students are aware that Marquette's theology instruction is not fully consistent with Catholic theology.

Helping students identify faithfully Catholic theologians—beginning with public identification of professors who received the mandatum from Archbishop Dolan—might help serious students choose serious professors. Publicly condemning Maguire's dissent and affirming the university's intent to preserve the integrity of Catholic theology in all future hiring and advancement decisions might reassure concerned Catholics.

Please know that you are in our prayers as you confront these very serious concerns of scandal and misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

Sincerely yours,
Patrick J. Reilly
President

cc: Most. Rev. Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of Milwaukee