Newspaper Page Text
4
1
PAGE 2—The Southern Cross, December 1, 1966
Bishops’ Pastoral Statement On Penance
Following is the text of the
Pastoral Statement of the Na
tional Conference of Catholic
Bishops on Penitential Ob
servance for the Liturgical
Year adopted (Nov. 18) by the
NCCB during its annual meet
ing held (Nov. 14 to 18) in
Washington, D.C.
“If we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves and
the truth is not in us ... If
we say that we have not sinned,
we make (God) a liar, and
His word is not in us.” (I
John 1, 8-10).
Thus Sacred Scriptures de
clare our guilt to be univer
sal; hence the universal ob
ligation to that repentence
which Peter, in his sermon on
Pentecost, declared necessary
for the forgiveness of sin (Acts
2, 38). Hence, too, the Church’s
constant recognition that all
the faithful are required by
divine law to do penance. As
from the fact of sin we Chris
tians can claim no exception,
so from the obligation to
penance we can seek no ex
emption.
Forms and seasons of
penance vary from time to time
and from people to people. But
the need for conversion and
salvation is unchanging, as is
the necessity that, confessing
our sinfulness, we perform,
personally and in community,
acts of penance in pledge of
our inward penitence and con
version.
For these reasons, Chris
tian peoples, members of a
Church that is at once holy,
penitent and always in pro
cess of renewal, have from the
beginning observed seasons
and days of penance. They have
done so by community peni
tential observances as well as
by personal acts of self-
denial; they have imitated the
example of the spotless Son of
God Himself, concerning
Whom the Sacred Scriptures
tell us that He went into the
desert to fast and to pray for
forty days (Mark 1, 13). Thus
Christ gave the example to
which Paul appealed in
teaching us how we, too, must
come to the mature measure
of the fulness of Christ (Eph.
4, 13).
Of the many penitential sea
sons which at one time or
another have entered the lit
urgical calendar of Christians
(who on this point have pre
served the holy tradition of
their Hebrew spiritual ances
tors), three have particularly
survived to our times: Advent,
Lent, and the vigils of certain
feasts.
Changing customs, espe
cially in connection with pre
paration for Christmas, have
diminished popular apprecia
tion of the Advent season.
Something of the holiday mood
of Christmas appears now to be
anticipated in the days of the
Advent season. As a result,
inis season has unfortunately
lost in great measure the role
of penitential preparation
for Christmas that it once had.
Zealous Christians have
striven to keep alive or to re
store the spirit of Advent by
resisting the trend away from
the disciplines and austerities
that once characterized the
season among us. perhaps
their devout purpose will be
better accomplished, and the
point of Advent will be better
fostered if we rely on the lit
urgical renewal and the new
emphasis on the liturgy to re
store its deeper understanding
as a season of effective pre
paration for the mystery of
the Nativity.
For these reasons, we the
shepherds of souls of this Con
ference, call upon Catholics
to make the Advent season,
beginning with 1966, a time
of meditation on the lessons
taught by the liturgy and of
increased participation in the
liturgical rites by which the
Advent mysteries are exem
plified and their sanctifying
effect is accomplished.
If in all Christian homes,
churches, schools, retreat and
other religious houses, lit
urgical observances are
practiced with fresh fervor and
fidelity to the penitential spirit
of the liturgy, then Advent will
again come into its own. Its
spiritual purpose will again be
clearly perceived.
A rich literature concerning
family and community lit
urgical observances appro
priate to Advent has fortunately
developed in recent years. We
urge instruction based upon it,
counting on the liturgical re
newal of ourselves and our
people to provide for our
spiritual obligations with re
spect to this season.
* * *
Lent has had a different
history than Advent among us.
Beginning with the powerful
lesson of Ash Wednesday, it
has retained its ancient appeal
to the penitential spirit of our
people. It has also acquired
elements of popular piety
which we Bishops would wish
to encourage.
Accordiugly, while appeal
ing for greater development of
the understanding of the Lenten
liturgy, as that of Advent, we
hope that the observance of
Lent as the principal season of
penance in the Christian year
will be intensified. This is the
more desirable because of new
insights into the central place
in Christian faith of those
Easter mysteries for the
understanding and enjoyment
of which Lent is the ancient
penitential preparation.
Wherefore, we ask, urgently
and prayerfully, that we as
people of God, make of the en
tire Lenten season a period
of special penitential obser
vance. Following the in
structions of the Holy See, we
declare that the obligation both
to fast and to abstain from
meat, an obligation observed
under a more strict formality
by our fathers in the faith,
still binds on Ash Wednesday
and Good Friday. No Catholic
Christian will lightly excuse
himself from so hallowed an
obligation on the Wednesday
which solemnly opens the Len
ten season and on that Friday
called “Good” because on
that day Christ suffered in the
flesh and died for our sins.
In keeping with the letter
and spirit of Pope Paul’s Con
stitution “Poenitemini,” we
preserve for our dioceses the
tradition of abstinence from
meat on each of the Fridays
of Lent, confident that no Cath
olic Christian will lightly hold
himself excused from this
penitential practice.
For all other weekdays of
Lent, we strongly recommend
participation in daily Mass and
a self-imposed observance of
fasting. In the light of grave
human needs which weigh on
the Christian conscience in all
seasons, we urge particularly
during Lent, generosity to lo
cal, national and world
programs of sharing of all
things needed to translate our
duty to penance into a means
of implementing the right of
the poor to their part in our
abundance. We also re
commend spiritual studies,
beginning with the sciptures
as well as the traditional Len
ten devotions (sermons, Sta
tions of the Cross and the
Rosary) and all the self-denial
summed up in the Christian
concept of “mortification.”
Let us witness to our love
and imitation of Christ, by
special solicitude for the sick,
the poor, the underprivileged,
the imprisoned, the bed-rid
den, the discouraged, the
stranger, the lonely, and per
sons of other color, nation
alities or background than our
own. A catalogue of not merely
suggested but required good
works under these headings
is provided by Our Blessed
Lord Himself in His descrip
tion of the Last Judgment (cf.
Matt. 25. 34-40). This salu
tary word of the Lord is neces
sary for all the year, but
should be heeded with double
care during Lent.
During the Lenten season,
certain feasts occur which the
liturgy or local custom tradi
tionally exempts from the Len
ten spirit of penance. The Ob
servance of these will continue
to be set by local diocesan
regulations; in these, and like
canonical questions, which
may arise in connection with
these pastoral instructions,
reference should be made to
Article VII of “Poenitemini”
and the usual norms.
* * *
Vigils and Ember Days, as
AMERICAN BISHOPS are pictured at annual meet
ing where they approved statements on Penance,
Poverty and Race Relations, Peace and Govern
ment and Birth Control. (N.C. Photo)
most now know, no longer
oblige to fast and abstinence.
However, the liturgical re
newal and the deeper apprecia
tion of the joy of the holy
days of the Christian year will,
we hope, result in a renewed
appreciation as to why our
forefathers spoke of “a fast
before a feast.” We impose
no fast before any feastday,
but we suggest that the devout
will find greater Christian joy
in the feasts of the liturgical
calendar if they freely bind
themselves, for their own
motives and in their own spirit
of piety, to prepare for each
Church festival by a day of
particular self-denial, peni
tential prayer and fasting.
of abstinence as binding under
pain of sin, as the sole pre
scribed means of observing
Friday, we give first place to
abstinence from flesh meat.
We do so in the hope that the
C atholic community will ordi
narily continue to abstain from
meat by free choice as for
merly we did in obedience to
Church law. Our expectation
is based on the following con
siderations:
a. We shall thus freely and
out of love for Christ Crucified
show our solidarity with the
generations of believers to
whom this practice frequently
became, especially in times of
persecution and of great pov
erty, no mean evidence of
fidelity to Christ and His
Church.
b. We shall thus also remind
ourselves that as Christians,
although immersed in the
world and sharing its life, we
must proserve a saving and
necessary difference from the
spirit of the world. Our delib
erate, personal abstinence
from meat, more especially
because no longer required by
law, will be an outward sign
of inward spiritual values that
we cherish.
Every' Catholic Christian
understands that the £as,t and
abstinence regulations admit
.of change, unlike the com
mandments and precepts of
that unchanging divine moral
law which the Church must to
day and "always defend as im
mutable. This said, we em
phasize that our people are
henceforth free from the obli
gation, traditionally binding,
unde r pain of sin in what per
tains to Friday abstinence, ex
cept as noted above for Lent.
We stress this so that no
scrupulosity will enter into
examinations of conscience,
confessions or personal de
cisions on this point.
Perhaps we should warn
those who decide to keep the
Friday abstinence for reasons
of personal piety and special
love that they must not pass
judgment on those who elect
to substitute other penitential
observances. Friday, please
God, will acquire among us
other forms of penitential wit
ness' which may become as
much as part of the devout way
of life in the future as Friday
abstinence from meat. In this
connection we have foremost in
mind the modern need for self-
discipline in the use of stimu
lants and for a renewed em
phasis on the virtue of tem
perance, especially in the use
of alcoholic beverages.
It would bring great glory
to God and good to souls if
Fridays found our people do
ing volunteer work in hospi
tals, visiting the sick, serving
the needs of the aged and the
lonely, instructing the young in
the Faith, participating <as
Christians in community af
fairs, and meeting our obli
gations to our families, our
friends, our neighbors and our
community, including our par
ishes, with a special zeal born
of the desire to add the merit
of penance to the other virtues
exercised; in good works born
of living faith.
In summary, let it not be
said that by this action, im
plementing the spirit of re
newal coming out of the Coun
cil, we have abolished Friday,
repudiated the holy traditions
of our fathers, or diminished
the insistence of the Church
on the fact of sin and the need
for penance. Rather, let it be
proved by the spirit in which
we enter upon prayer and pen
ance, not excluding fast and
abstinence freely chosen, that
these present decisions and
recommendations of this Con
ference of Bishops will herald
a new birth of loving faith and
more profound penitential con
version, by both of which we
become one with Christ, ma
ture sons of God and servants
of God’s people.
N. B. The effective date of
these regulations is the first
Sunday of Advent, Nov. 27,
1966.
.............. ..........
Government And Birth Control
* * *
Christ died for our salva
tion on Friday.
Gratefully remembering
this, Catholic peoples from
time immemorial have set a-
part Friday for special peni
tential observance by which
they gladly suffer with Christ
that they may one day be
glorified with Him. This is
the heart of the tradition of
abstinence from meat on Fri
day where that tradition has
been observed in the holy
Catholic Church.
Changing circumstances,
including economic, dietary
and social elements, have
made some of our people feel
that the renunciation of the
eating of meat is not always
and for everyone the most
effective means of practicing
penance. Meat was once an
exceptional form of food; now
it is commonplace.
Accordingly, since the spirit
of penance primarily suggests
that we discipline ourselves
in that which we enjoy most,
to many in our day abstinence
from meat no longer implies
penance, while renunciation of
other things would be more
penitential.
For these and related rea
sons, the Catholic Bishops of
the United States, far from
downgrading the traditional
Penitential observance of
Friday, and motivated pre
cisely by the desire to give the
spirit of penance greater
vitality, especially on Fridays,
the day that Jesus died, urge
our Catholic people henceforth
to be guided by the following
norms:
L Friday itself remains a
special day of penitential
observance throughout the
year, a time when those who
seek perfection will be mind
ful of their personal sins and
the sins of mankind which they
are called upon to help ex
piate in union with Christ
C rucified;
2. Friday should be in each
week something ofwhatLentis
in the entire year. For this
reason we urge all to prepare
for that weekly Easter that
comes with each Sunday by
freely making of every Friday
a day of self-denial and morti
fication in prayerful remem
brance of the passion of Jesus
Christ;
3. Among the works of vo
luntary self-denial and per
sonal penance which we espe
cially commend to our people
for the future observance of
Friday, even though we hereby
terminate the traditional law
This statement was issued
by the administrative board
of the National Catholic Wel
fare Conference with the un
animous approval of the body
of U.S. bishops at their an
nual meeting at the Catholic
University of America in
Washington, D.C., on Monday,
Nov. 14.
At the spring meeting of the
NCWC administrative board,
pursuant to their power to
prepare statements on specific
subjects, a committee was ask
ed to draft such a statement.
This statement is the result
of that action.
It could not be issued ear
lier than now because this is
the first time the body of
bishops has assembled since
last year. Because the ad
ministrative board has been
working on this statement
since their spring meeting, it
was issued as their statement.
The good of the individual
person and that of human so
ciety are intimately bound up
with the stability of the family.
Basic to the well-being of the
family is freedom from exter
nal coercion in order that it
may determine its own des
tiny.
This freedom involves in
herent personal ■ and family
rights, including the freedom
and responsibility of spouses
to make conscientious de
cisions in terms of nuptial
love, determination of family
size and the rearing of chil
dren. The Church and the State
must play supportive roles,
fostering conditions in modern
society which will help the
family achieve the fullness of
its life and mission as the
means ordained by God for
bringing the person into being
and maturity.
We address ourselves here
to certain questions of concern
to the family, with special
reference to public policies
related to social conditions
and the problems of our times.
In so doing, we speak in the
light of the Pastoral Constitu
tion on the Church in the
Modern World adopted by
Vatican Council II. Faced with
our Government’s stepped-up
intervention in family plan
ning, including the subsidizing
of contraceptive programs at
home and abroad, we feel
bound in conscience to recaH
particularly the solemn warn
ing expressed in these words:
“. . .(There) are many to
day who maintain that the in
crease in world population,
o r at least the population in
crease in some countries,
must be radically curbed by
every means possible and by
any kind of intervention on
the part of public authority.
In view of this contention,
the Council urges everyone to
guard against solutions,
whether publicly or privately
supported, or at times even
imposed, which are contrary
to the moral law. For in keep
ing with man’s inalienable
right to marry and generate
children, the decision con
cerning the number of chil
dren they will have depends
on the correct judgment of the
parents and it can in no way
be left to the judgment of
public authority” (Constitu
tion on Church in Modern
World, sec. 2, n. 87).
Therefore, a major pre-oc
cupation in our present state
ment must be with the free
dom of spouses to determine
the size of their families. It
is necessary to underscore
this freedom because in some
current efforts of government
—federal and state—to reduce
poverty, we see welfare pro
grams increasingly proposed
which include threats to the
free choice of spouses. Just
as freedom is undermined
when poverty and disease are
present, so too is freedom
endangered when persons or
agencies outside the family
unit, particularly persons who
control welfare benefits or
represent public authority,
presume to influence the de
cision as to the number of
children or the frequency of
births in a family.
Free decision is curtailed
when spouses feel constrained
to choose birth limitation be
cause of poverty, inadequate
and inhuman housing, or lack
of proper medical services.
Here we insist that it is the
positive duty of government to
help bring about those con
ditions of family freedom
which will relieve spouses
from such material and physi
cal pressures to limit family
size.
Government promotion of
family planning programs as
part of tax-supported relief
projects may easily result in
the temptation and finally the
tragic decision to reduce ef
forts to foster the economic,
social and indeed moral re
forms needed to build the free,
enlightened society.
In connection with present
and proposed governmental
family limitation programs,
there is frequently the impli
cation that freedom is assured
so long as spouses are left
at liberty to choose among
different methods of birth con
trol. This we reject as a nar
row concept of freedom. Birth
control is not a universal ob
ligation, as is often implied;
moreover, true freedom of
choice must provide even for
those who wish to raise a
larger family without being
subject to criticism and with
out forfeiting for themselves
the benefits or for their chil
dren the educational opportun
ities and which have become
part of the value system of a
truly free society. We reject,
most emphatically, the sug
gestion that any family should
be adjudged too poor to have
the children it conscientiously
desires.
The freedom of spouses to
determine the size of their
families must not be inhibited
by any conditions upon which
relief or welfare assistance
is provided. Health and wel
fare assistance should not be
linked, even indirectly, to con
formity with a public agency’s
views on family limitation or
birth control; nor may the
right to found a large family
be brought properly into ques
tion because it contradicts
current standards arbitrarily
deduced from general popula
tion statistics. No government
social worker or other repre
sentative of public power
should in any way be permitted
to impose his judgment, in a
matter so close to personal
values and to the very sources
of life, upon the family seeking
assistance; neither should he
be permitted to initiate sug
gestions placing, even by im-
nlication, public authority be
hind the recommendation that
new life in a family should be
prevented.
For these reasons, we have
consistently urged and we con
tinue to urge, as a matter of
sound public policy, a clear
and unqualified separation of
welfare assistance from birth
control considerations—
whatever the legality or
molality of contraception in
general or in specific forms—
in order to safeguard the free
dom of the person and the
autonomy of the family.
On previous occasions we
have warned of dangers to
the-right qf privacy posed by
governmental birth control
programs; we have urged upon
government a role of neutra
lity whereby it neither pena
lizes nor promotes birth con
trol. Recent developments,
however, show government
rapidly abandoning any such
role. Far from merely seek
ing to provide information in
response to requests from the
needy, Government activities
increasingly seek aggres
sively to persuade and even
coerce the underprivileged to
practice birth control. In this,
government far exceeds its
proper role. The citizen’s
right to decide without pres
sure is now threatened. Inti
mate details of personal,
marital and family life are
suddenly becoming the pro
vince of government officials
in programs of assistance to
the poor. We decry this over
reaching by government and
assert again the inviolability
of the right of human privacy.
We support all needed re
search toward medically anc
morally acceptable methods
which can assist spouses to
make responsible and gen
erous decisions in seeking
to cooperate with the will of
God in what pertains to family
size and well-being. A respon
sible decision w* 1 ’ always be
one which is open to life rather
than intent upon the preven
tion of life; among religious
people, it includes a strong
sense of dependence upon
God’s Providence.
It should be obvious that a
full understanding of human
worth, personal and social,
will not permit the nation to
put the public power behind
the pressures for a contracep
tive way of life. We urge
government, at all levels to
resist pressures toward any
merely mathematical and neg
ative effort to solve health
or population problems. We
call upon all—and especially
Catholics — to oppose, vigo
rously and by every demo
cratic means, those cam
paigns already underway in
some states and at the na
tional level toward the ac
tive promotion, by tax-sup
ported agencies, of birth pre
vention as a public policy,
above all in connection with
welfare benefit programs.
History has shown thataspeo-
(Cont’d on Page 3) ’
NEWLY ELECTED president and vice president of the Conference of Catho
lic Bishops of the U.S. are seen receiving congratulations from Francis Cardi
nal Spellman of New York (Nov. 14). The new president (at left) is Arch
bishop John F. Dearden of Detroit. Archbishop John J. Krol (right) is the
new vice president. (NC Photos)