Vatican Lifts Sanctions On Irish Theologian

Until reading this piece, which I pray is truly a Sign of the Times, I had never heard of Sean Fagan, but the name of William Levada is all too familiar. Curiosity led me to Google Fagan and the title of his 'contrary to church teaching' book and I found this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/ni/2008/12/what_happened_to_sin.html. Written prior to Levada's action, it provides what would seem to be typical passages of what any sensible person might consider to be contrary to church mis-teaching in regard to sexuality and sin. It's interesting to me that Fagan was threatened with dismissal from the priesthood while other 'dangerous' theologians have merely been forbidden to write on particular subjects or to teach in Catholic institutions. Is it because others, e.g., Roger Haight, only wrote questionably about Jesus and not about sin, or might it be that he is a Jesuit not a Marist, and thus a tad further removed from the righteous rule of the Holy Office? In any event, let's applaud this action and hope it is a harbinger of better days for thinking Catholics, even theologians.

Thank God we are free of Levada!

This note lacks basic context. For example, what specific views on human sexuality put Fr. Fagan originally at odds with the C.D.F.? If not compatible, what are the teachings of the Church on those specific topics? What happened since then that now have him as "a priest in good standing"?

This sounds as if it might be good news. I read the link to the bbc article and he seems to have some very good opinions about many issues.

"This does not mean that everything is relative, but only that we need to relativise some of our mistaken absolutes. The moral law is discovered and explained by human reason, which is fallible and can make mistakes." Yup.

Although I am not a Roman Catholic, I cannot support those who have been disciplined by their Church for disobedience or have any sympathy with those who support them. Whether the cleric's view is objectively right or wrong, that person is still under a vow of obedience.

Based on the little I read at the link, it seems this priest is actually speaking for THE church, for the sensus fidelium. Of course Rome felt threatened. They continue to refuse to accept that the 1.1 billion are THE church and not a tiny handful of men in Rome.