Response to Patrick

I doubt that either Kung or Curran regard the decision of many who have left the Catholic church out of disagreement with the teachings of the Vatican to be a mortal sin (Curran says he appreciates why some Catholic women have left the church without suggesting their departure was sinful though he later says you can never really leave the church). Nor would leaving the Catholic church because of the Vatican's teachings or its treatment of women necessarily or even likely involve renunciation of the concept of sin. Moreover, Curran is quite clear that teachings of the magisterium are not necessarily teachings of the church (we, of course have discussed this at some length). He does identify core teachings that all Catholic must accept to be Catholics, but he does not think that the controversial positions about sex, women, celibacy, the force of the magisterium claimed by the Vatican (at least when not "received" by the People of God), etc., are among them).  If leaving the church is a mortal sin, the question whether to leave the church answers itself. The question becomes more interesting if leaving the church is not regarded as  per se sinful. Both Kung and Curran believe that staying in the church is the right thing for them to do. Their explanations for staying in the church are not the same, but they overlap and are both rich and interesting in their own right. Kung seems to believe that there is more choice involved than does Curran. Curran may overargue his position somewhat, but it is wonderfully put. Both Kung and Curran's reasons for staying in seem to have a lot more to do with reforming the pilgrim church than with avoiding mortal sin. As Curran puts it, "It is God's church which we are all trying to make more faithful to what it is called to be. The covenant people of God will always struggle the make the church a better sign of the reign of God in our midst."