Newspaper Page Text
formation, are presupposed in
this encyclical as in any papal
or conciliar decisions on
moral teaching. We recognize
the role of conscience as a
“practical dictate”, not a
teacher of doctrine.
Thomas Aquinas describes
conscience as the practical
judgment or dictate of
reason, by which we judge
what here and now is to be
done as being good, or to be
avoided as evil. Vatican
Council says that a man is not
to be forced to act in a
manner contrary to his
conscience (cf. Declaration
on Religious Freedom, 3).
This is certainly true in any
conflict between a practical
doctrine of conscience and a
legislative or administrative
decree of any superior.
However, when it is
question of the Pope’s
teaching, as distinct from a
decree or order, on a matter
bound up with life and
salvation, the question of
conscience and its formation
takes on quite different
perspectives and dimensions.
Cardinal Newman puts it in
strong terms: “ ... I have to
say again, lest I should be
misunderstood, that when I
speak of conscience, I mean
conscience truly so called.
When it has the right of
opposing the supreme,
though not infallible
Authority of the Pope, it
must be something more than
that miserable counterfeit
which, as I have said above,
now goes by the name. If in a
particular case it is to be
taken as a sacred and
sovereign monitor, its dictate,
in order to prevail against the
voice of the Pope, must
follow upon serious thought,
prayer, and all available
means of arriving at a right
judgment on the matter in
question. And further,
obedience to the Pope is what
is called ‘in possession’; that
is, the onus probandi (burden
of proof) of establishing a
case against him lies, as in all
cases of exception, on the
side of conscience. Unless a
man is able to say to himself,
as in the Presence of God,
that he must not, and dare
not, act upon the Papal
injunction, he is bound to
obey it and would commit a
great sin in disobeying it.
Prima facie it is his bounden
duty, even from a sentiment
of loyalty, to believe the
Pope right and to act
accordingly...” (A Letter
to the Duke of Norfolk)
Humanae Vitae does not
discuss the question of the
good faith of those who make
practical decisions in
conscience against what the
Church considers a divine law
and the Will of God. The
encyclical does not undertake
to judge the consciences of
individuals but to set forth
the authentic teaching of the
Church which Catholics
believe interprets the divine
law to which conscience
should be conformed.
The Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern
World reminds us that “in
their manner of acting,
spouses should be aware that
they cannot proceed
arbitrarily. They must always
be governed according to a
conscience dutifully
conformed to the divine law
itself, and should be
submissive toward the
Church’s teaching office,
which authentically interprets
that law in the light • of the
Gospel. That divine law
reveals and protects the
integral meaning of conjugal
love and impels it toward a
truly human fulfillment”
(Gaudium et Spes, 50). We
must not suppose that there
is such conflict between
authority and freedom,
between objective values and
subjective fulfilment, that
one can only prevail by the
elimination of the other.
Married couples faced with
conflicting duties are often
caught in agonizing crises of
conscience. For example, at
times it proves difficult to
harmonize the sexual
expression of conjugal love
with respect for the life-giving
power of sexual union and
the demands of responsible
parenthood. Pope Paul’s
encyclical and the
commentaries of the
international episcopates on
it are sensitive as are we to
these painful situations.
Filled with compassion for
the human condition the
Holy Father offers counsel
which we make our own:
“Let married couples,
then, face up to the efforts
needed, supported by the
faith and hope which do
not disappoint. .. because
God’s love has been poured
into our hearts through the
Holy Spirit, Who has been
given to us; let them
implore divine assistance
by persevering prayer;
above all, let them draw
from the source of grace
and charity in the
Eucharist. And if sin
should still keep its hold
over them, let them not be
discouraged, but rather
have recourse with humble
perseverance to the mercy
of God, which is poured
forth in the Sacrament of
Penance” (Humanae Vitae,
25).
We feel bound to remind
Catholic married couples,
when they are subjected to
the pressures which
prompt the Holy Father’s
concern, that however
circumstances may reduce
moral guilt, no one following
the teaching of the Church
can deny the objective evil of
artificial contraception itself.
With pastoral solicitude we
urge those who have resorted
to artificial contraception
never to lose heart but to
continue to take full
advantage of the strength
which comes from the
Sacrament of Penance and
the grace, healing, and peace
in the Eucharist. May we all
be mindful of the invitation
of Jesus: “The man who
comes to me I will never turn
away” (Jn. 6, 37). Humility,
awareness of our pilgrim
state, a willingness and
determination to grow in the
likeness of the Risen Christ
will help to restore direction
of purpose and spiritual
stability.
Negative Reactions To
The Encyclical
The position taken by the
Holy Father in his encyclical
troubled many. The reasons
tor this are numerous. Not a
few had been led and had led
others to believe that a
contrary decision might be
anticipated. The mass media
which largely shape public
opinion have, as the Holy
Father himself pointed out,
at times amplified the voices
which are contrary to the
voice of the Church. Then,
too, doctrine on this point
has its effect not. only on the
intellects of those who hear it
but on their deepest
emotions; it is hardly
surprising that negative
reactions have ranged from
sincere anguish to angry hurt
or bitter disappointment,
even among devout believers.
Finally, a decision on a point
so long uncontroverted and
only recently confronted by
new questions was bound to
meet with mixed reactions.
That tensions such as these
should arise within the
household of the faith is not
surprising and need not be
scandalous. The Holy Father
frankly confessed that his
teaching would not be easily
received by all. Some
reactions were regrettable,
however, in the light of the
explicit teaching of Vatican
Council II concerning the
obligation of Catholics to
assent to papal teaching even
when it is not presented with
the seal of infallibility. The
Council declared:
“In matters of faith and
morals, the bishop speak in
the name of Christ and the
faithful are to accept their
teaching and adhere to it
with a religious assent of
soul. This religious
submission of will and of
mind must be shown in a
special way to the
authentic teaching
authority of the Roman
Pontiff, even when he is
not speaking ex-cathedra.
That is, it must be shown
in such a way that his
supreme magisterium is
acknowledged with
reverence, the judgments
made by him are sincerely
adhered to, according to
his manifest mind and will.
His mind and will in the
matter may be known
chiefly either from the
character of the
documents, from his
frequent repetition of the
same doctrine, or from his
manner of speaking”
(Lumen Gentium, 25).
Pope Paul has recalled this
obligation several times with
respect to his encyclical on
the regulation of birth,
beginning when he exhorted
priests “to be the first to give/
in the exercise of your
ministry, the example of
loyal internal and external
obedience to the teaching
authority of the Church.”
(Humanae Vitae, 28).
Norms Of Licit
Theological Dissent
There exist in the Church
a lawful freedom of inquiry
and of thought and also
general norms of licit dissent.
This is particularly true in the
area of legitimate theological
speculation and research.
When conclusions reached by
such professional theological
work prompt a scholar to
dissent from non-infallible
received teaching the norms
of licit dissent come into
play. They require of him
careful respect for the
consciences of those who lack
his special competence or
opportunity for judicious
investigation. These norms
also require setting forth his
dissent with propriety and
with regard for the gravity of
the matter and the deference
due the authority which has
pronounced on it.
The reverence due all
sacred matters, particularly
questions which touch on
salvation, will not necessarily
require the responsible
scholar to relinquish his
opinion but certainly to
propose it with prudence
born of intellectual grace and
a Christian confidence that
the truth is great and will
prevail.
When there is question of
theological dissent from
non-infallible doctrine, we
must recall that there is
always a presumption in favor
of the magisterium. Even
non-infallible authentic
doctrine, though it may
admit of development or call
for clarification or revision,
remains binding and carries
with it a moral certitude,
especially when it is
addressed to the universal
Church, without ambiguity,
in response to urgent
questions bound up with
faith and crucial to morals.
The expression of theological
dissent from the magisterium
is in order only if the reasons
are serious and well-founded,
if the manner of the dissent
does not question or impugn
the teaching authority of the
Church and is such as not'to
give scandal.
Since our ego is
characterized by popular
interest in theological debate
and given the realities of
modern mass media, the ways
in which theological dissent
may be effectively expressed, -
in a manner consistent with
pastoral solicitude, should
become the object of fruitful
dialogue between bishops and
theologians. These have their
diverse ministries in the
Church, their distinct
responsibilities to the faith
and their respective charisms.
Even responsible dissent
does not excuse one from
faithful presentation of the
authentic doctrine of the
Church when one is
performing a pastoral
ministry in Her name.
We count on priests, the
counsellors of persons and
families, to heed the appeal
of Pope Paul that they
“expound the Church’s
teaching on marriage without
ambiguity;” that they
“diminish in no way the
saving teaching of Christ”,
but “teach married couples
the indispensable way of
prayer . . . whithout ever
allowing them to be
discouraged by their
weakness” (Humanae Vitae,
29). We commend to
confessors, as does Pope Paul,
the example of the Lord
Himself, Who was indeed
intransigent with evil, but
merciful towards individuals.
Family Spirituality
Our concern for family life
must extend far beyond the
publication of pastoral
letters. We pledge ourselves to
cooperate in multiplying
ways and means toward the
renewal of the family and the
enhancing of its prestige.
Specifically, we shall increase
our encouragement in the
dioceses and . the nation of
programs, undertaken by
apostolic groups whose
objective is the natural and
spiritual strengthening of the
Christian family.
Because of the primacy of
the spiritual in all that makes
for renewal, we give top
priority to whatever may
AS U.S. BISHOPS MET for their general conference in Washington, a preliminary discussion took
place between (left to right) Bishop Ernest L. Unterkoefler of Charleston, S.C., secretary of the
Bishops’ conference; Lawrence Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore; and Archbishop John F. Dearden of
Detroit, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. (NC Photos)