Cases and queries. Christians and doubts

Media

Part of Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Title: Cases and queries. Christians and doubts
Language: English
Year: 1969
Rights
Fulltext: CASES AND QUERIES CHRISTIANS AND DOUBTS F. del Rio My wife and I made the “Cursillo” nearly two years ago and soon after we joined the CFM. In the course of these two years we have come to meet many of priests and welcome them in our humble residence, after we joined the CFM. Indeed we have gained light and strength from this association. Present day problems of all kinds are the the sub ject matter of our informed conconversations; of late the letter of theHoly Father on “The Regulation of Births” and the various reactions all over the world to this papal document have been prequently the subject of our talks. My wife has noticed that as time goes on, some few priests choose to be non-committal, many seen to be uncertain as to here they ought to stand, and lastly one of them expressed his personal view which to us Catholics were plainly disturbing,—’contraception, he said, is not a sin, why so much fuss about it. May we construe this fact as meaning that the strong reaction of opposition to the “Humanae Vitae” Encyclical has succeeded in open ing new vistas, new aspects to this problem previously unknown to us, new insights and doctrinal development, on the strength of which a Ca tholic may reasonably entertain the just mentioned attitudes of some of our priests? Our answer to our consultant is quite simple and brief. Six months have past since the publication of the “Humanae Vitae,” and too much has been said and written against this papal doctrinal document. In going thru the literature on this matter available to me, I have failed to discover new vistas, aspects, insights, doctrinal development. I be lieve I can make my own today, the statement of Denis O’Callagham, two years ago, “a good deal of this discussion is being carried on at a 163 very superficial level, where prejudice has masqueraded as fact, and in dividual experience as philosophical principle (Clergy Review, Nov. 1966, p 840.) The traditional doctrine of the Church as re-stated by Paul VI, on July 25, 1968 in the “Humanae Vitae” Encyclical stands as firmly established as ever, whereas the opposition has failed to show any valid reason justifying its stand. Those who advocate contracep tion, however limited in its application, will have to offer new arguments for it, instead of merely querying the traditional argument against or the authority supporting the traditional doctrine. This is not the place to test and evaluate the supposed to be valid reasons standing on the path of accepting the Church’s doctrine as stated by the Sovereign Pontiff. We offer to our readers one presented, in a take-it or leave-it way, by seventy-six lay English Catholics who signed the following statement: They hold that— a) the adoption of a method of birth control of the rhythms inhe rent in the generation function is as artificial, as the use of a chemical or mechanical device (hence), b) the choice of method is one to be made bv husband and wife, not in an arbitrary manner, but iu the conscientious exercise of their responsibility before God to uphold and foster a creative love; c) the choice thus conscientiously made is not a matter for con fession. “We feel bound in conscience to make this statement and to advice in the above sense any who look to us for counccl.” It is superficial, writes B. Haring1 to maintain that the practice of periodic continency (or rhythm) is as uhtiatural as the use of artifi cial means, or that it demands constant and accurate calculation and destroys the spontaneity of love. Such expressions have been heard in the last few years even from Catholic doctors. The answer to this is, among other things, that working out the days when no conception will occur — or in the case of a couple who want a child, when conception may occur — is just one of many considerations such as whether one can accept responsibility for an increase in the family or not, which 1 Marriage in the Modern World, the Mercier Press, Cork, 1965. p. 335. 164 precede intercourse. No considerate husband expects intercourse with his wife during her monthly period. He has to take these periods into account just as he has to take many other factors into account; such loving thoughtfulness is not the negation of spontaneity in love but the negation of lack of control of his instincts. “In accordance with the will of the Creator, sexuality in married life has two connected polar motives, a strong and a weak. The “strong” preferable motive is the maximum of fertility; it is the most intimate mutual giving in a common desire for a child. The infertile days are to a certain extent “weak” motive, the other pole, which devotes mutual intimacy in grateful recognition of loving devotion. Once husband and wife have recognized the meaning and intrinsic finality of the mo tive of fruitfulness in generous readiness to serve life, then their union even in infertile times acquires the same dignity through its polar unity with the “strong motive,” through the will of creative love to engender “trinity.” Thus, self-controlled love in renunciation and in fulfilment is an enduring and deliberate assent to the overall meaning of marriage, and also to the meaningful rhythm of nature. “Intercourse in the so-called infertile periods becomes a real fulfill ment of the meaning of marriage provided there is at bottom a common devotion to God’s creative love in the form of assent, ready to make sacrifices, to the service of life. Here, too, we see the real meaning of the Church’s teaching that children are the primary purpose of mar riage; everything in marriage receives its ultimate fulfillment, its final fonn and supernatural spirit from the divine love, from a common, loving submission to God’s will. But this necessarily included, or pre supposes rather, loving submission to God’s creative love. “The knowledge we now have of the fertility cycle has not re moved all the difficulties from married life, particularly since recourse to the choice of times is not available to women whose periods are ir regular and who may have good medical grounds for not wishing to undertake another pregnancy. New and more accurate ways of deter mining the time of ovulation by the basal temperature method already constitute an extension of the possibilities of this recourse. It appears that the most recent scientific advance by a Japanese gynecologist pro vide a sample reagent test of the saliva or urine to determine whether 165 ovulation has or has not taken place and this makes it possible to determine the infertile periods with certainty.”2 - The “R.C. Formation Pill” which Prof. Carley has developed in Aus tralia is very promising in this respect. :l We owe to the Catholic periodical “Homelife” English translations of these important documents. We are told that much of the doctrinal confusion existing in our midst seems to originate from the reading of several pastoral letters of the Conferences of Bishops in other countries, published in Catholic periodicals. In the light of these pastoral letters, one is led to believe that the individual should solve problems or conflicts arising in this matter under consideration, ultimately as his conscience sees it proper and right, “Pas tors, write the German bishops, will respect in their work, especially in the administration of sacraments, the decisions of consciences of the be lievers made in the awareness of their responsibility.” The bishops of Belgium, England, France, etc, write along similar lines.1 I would like to make three remarks in this connection: a) The Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines issued a Pastoral Letter on the “Humanae Vitae” Encyclical, on October 12, 1968. It is they, the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines, whom Divine Provi dence has placed over this portion of the vineyard of the Lord, to lead us His people, pnests and lay people alike, to the green pastures of eternal life, suffering first with Christ that we may be glorified with Him (Rom. 8, 17). The conscientious reading of this Pastoral Letter will undoubtedly dispel many a doubt from our minds, enlightening and strengthening the life of faith within us; b) The Pastoral Letters of the Conferences of Bishops in other countries are not primarily doctrinal, but pastoral, aiming at or con cerned with the preparation of the minds of priests and lay people 166 to accept the authoritative teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff.4 They do not consider so much the doctrine to be laid down, as its ap plication in difficult circumstances. There is no clear evidence in these pastoral letters of ethical situationism. Catholic minorities in North ern Europe and USA live together and share the same culture of the ma jority i.e., the Protestant culture and mentality. The Protestant mentality and attitude towards contraception is well known, particularly since 1930 when at the Conference of Lambeth, the 15th resolution approving of the practice of birth control, under certain circumstances, was carried by a vote of 193 vs. 67. Catholic understanding of the moral divine law and its application, in the words of Barry5 is “theological ferocity”; ethical situationism pervades Protestant moral theology. Influenced by this mentality, some Catholics accept the rulings of the Church’s Magistcrium, in this field of sex, as indications of the targets to be aimed in one’s conduct, and indeed as factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the concrete situation and conflict, and arriving at one’s own completely personal decision, but they regard this decision, not any general norm or moral principles, however authoritatively declared, as the final and real determinant of the morality. In other words, it is not the objective morality of an act that counts, but the sincerity of one’s personal response to the concrete and existentially unique situa tion. This concept of conscience is presented as a mark of maturity, or sign that the Christian has become of age. The Pastoral Letter cf Catholic Hierarchy has spoken so well and, at great length on this matter that we feel our reader would do well to re-read part II of said official document.0 4 Austrian bishops are, in part, an exception. Are they misimforrr..?d? Ignorance of one kind or another can become incredibly daring! We fail to see any basis in the “Humanae Vit.-.?” Encyclical warranting the Bishop’s state ment. Do we seek the truth that pleases or what else? “Christian Ethics and Secular Society” London, 1966, p. 200. 0 For the benefit of those who have no copy of this document, I feel a brief comment is in order. To the mind of Pius XII ethical situationism is a mark of immaturity, a flight from reality, or failure to take account of the theo logical truth and fact that every generation of the sons of Adam, however cul turally developed, begins and pursues its journey thru life under the burden and 167 c) “It seems to be overlooked, writes a layman, Dr. K. M. Pole — that as with any other moral precept, the sin is condemned, but not necessarily the sinner. The Church is “intransigent with evil, but merciful towards individuals” and the assessment of personal guilt or oherwise is and always was a matter for the conscience of the person concerned and for the priest in the Confessional.”' Of course, the priest in the Confessional is not Mister So and So, but a minister rep resentative of Christ, of the Church, and ought to act in perfect ac cordance with doctrine of the Church. Agit in persona Christi. We must be on the alert lest the naturalistic, hedonistic contraceptive civilization which permeatas certain areas of the West penetrates and ruins the moral fiber of our people. Some Catholics are particularly bewildered by so much opposition, by so much unwillingness to heed the teaching of the Church as formulat ed by the Pope, opposition coming from within the Church, from bishops, priests, theologians, Vatican Council II periti — according to reliable press reports. Our bishops are well aware of the disturbing ideas creeping up in our Catholic millieu, hence the Pastoral Letter mentioned above. They say: “While the sentiments of loyalty to the authority of the Holy Father, and the sincere acceptance of his teaching on the part of the great majority of his flock have scarcely been mentioned in the inter national press, the adverse comments coming from a relatively small portion of the faithful have been played up. And there is danger that this adverse publicity might affect the filial attitude of respect and re handicap of original sin. Furthcnnore, it shows a strange blindness to the historically demonstrable fact that .even intelligent and conscientious men, left to themselves, reach the most diverse and often disastrous conclusions. Of course God wants due attention to be paid to the particular circumstances ot the concrete situation; often enough they determine its morality. God wants us to respond sincerely to the complete data of every situation, and one of these data may be its objective morality, the demands oj reality the existing moral order manifesting God’s holy will, the objective order of right and wrong. He has established, and of course God is not indifferent whether or not our actions conform to that order. Cfr. Catholic Medical Quarterly, Oct. 1966, p. 112, L.L. McReavy. The Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. XXXIII, 1966, p. 346. 7 Catholic Medical Quarterly, Oct. 1968, pp. 112-113. Dr. K. F. M. Pole. 168 verence of our people toward the person of the Vicar of Christ” p.l). Hence their Pastoral Letter aimed at offsetting or at least minimizing the ruinous moral effect of such publicity on our people, deserves our reading and meditation. I shall not comment on the unbecoming reaction of some very few bishops abroad. On the attitude of priests and moral theologians I have this sympathetic observation to make. We suffer from a very serious scarcity of Moral Theologians! “In France, for example, writes J-M. Pohiers, there are approximately four professors of Holy Scrip ture and of Dogmatic Theology for one in Moral Theology, and to make the situation worse, the latter is quite frequently less well trained and prepared, often times is transfered from his assignment in Moral Theo logy, easily accepting other subjects such as Canon Law, or other acti vities rather than engaging wholeheartedly in research work in his Mo ral Theology field. Biblical, patristical, liturgical renewal has been in troduced in Dogmatic and Pastoral Theology, far more deeply and effectively than in Moral Theology.”8 My experience though limited, leads to believe this sad situation exists not only in France, but it is common to other countries. Indeed, we suffer from a chronic scarcity of well trained, developed Moral Theologians!. . . Then current basic textbooks or reference books are unpedagogical and not up-to-date, as a rule. No wonder if parish priests, and priests engaged in ministerial work do not feel too sure as to where they stand on moral problems com ing up to-day. Many pit-falls, grave errors can be avoided only by accept ing the directives of those in authority over us, our bishops, the vicar of Christ. We see no alternative. No wonder if so many priests to day are misled and are misleading! s “Psychologic Contemporaine et requites de la foi”, La Vie Spirituelle, Suppl., Sept., 1967, p. 406. Some of the Vatican Council II periti present a more complex prob lem, which I can not deal with at full length here. I shall try to be brief, clear. According to reports in the secular and Catholic press, some twen ty theologians from eight countries met last September at the invita tion of the Faculty of Theology in Amsterdam, Holland, to 169 discuss the Enc. “Humanae Vitae.” In the words of clergyman Schillibeeckx, Pope Paul “has become the prisoner of five or six cardinals. Because of their one-sided information Pope Paul has been convinced of the necessity for a “hard line.” Everybody knows who these car dinals are. They are really blind. They are the ones who are destroy ing the Church.” It is most regrettable statements of this nature under mining the very foundation of our trust and respect for the visible Head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, meant possibly for home consumption, but finding factually a far and wide echo, in the press, secular and catholic, of other countries, were ever made bv a clergy man of the theological tradition of Schillibeeckx! It is a senseless thing to assume that the “Pope is in prison” in order to escape the respon sibility inherent in the rejection of the Pope’s teaching! “We find to our dismay, that the Enc. ‘Humane Vitae’ does not respond to the expectations that had been created by the Pastoral Con stitution of the Church in the Modern World,” so runs the press state ment of the aforementioned theologians and ‘periti.’ “In fact, they con tinue, the Encyclical places marriage in a perspective that in the judg ment of a great many experts does no justice to reality. . . “We cannot agree that, in a moral evaluation, there would be any real difference between making use of the infertile periods of th? woman, and making use of other methods, that for determined periods prevent fertilization. Any of these methods can be used for good or for evil intentions. . . Though we do not wish to sow any doubt on the principle of Church authority, we must state that the faithful do not know what to do with this Encyclical. We wonder, if the way this encyclical came into being, and its publication, contrary to the opinion of the great majority of experts that were consulted is in agree ment at all with the manner of exercising authority that is demanded by modern civilization, in the name of human dignity, and by the task of all the faithful in the people of God, that is, the Church.”9 * Catholic Herald. Friday, October 4, 1968, p. 2, cis. 3-5. I have given the full text of the statement as known to me and given in the Catholic press of England, that any one may value it in its merits. 170 It takes a superdose of sense of humor to go thru it, analyze it and take it seriously. The “Humanae Vitae” Enc. to these critics is a very dis graceful document, in every respect. That’s all. I refuse, at this time and place, to be dragged back into the petty discussion outside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, when in 1963-1964, the question of “juridical collegiality” was up in the air. We are now in 1969. To-day what Vatican Council II teaches us all in ch. Ill, in the “Lumen Gentium” Const, aa. 12-29 is well known to the Pope’s critics. We accept whole heartedly rhe Magisterium of the Church. This is not a scientific ma gisterium, but a magisterium of authority. The Pope is the supreme teacher of the faith, interpreting authentically the moral divine law and teaching that its observance binds all the faithful. It is a cettain theological doctrine that the Holy Spirit assists the Church in in terpreting the moral divine law. The Pope has not the monopoly ol theological wisdom, but he has, the Church has the promise cf Christ that He would be with it, — not with theologians or periti in V.C. II. A divinely established and inspired Church cannot be ruled by a majority vote. I see no.valid reason for some theologians trying to perpetuate a “false” notion of collegiality, which Vatican Council II did not approve. The Vicar of Christ has, bv virtue of his office, a full, supreme, universal power that he can always exercise freely. It has taken Pope Paul an act of truly “apostolic courage” to speak to the world — the wav he did. The “Finger of God” was there. We are grateful to the Holy Spirit for the light and strength given us, thru him. There is no desire to minimize the work of tiue theologians, but in telling us to limit assent to those moral truths, which the Pope not merely teaches but demonstrates to their satisfaction they are not cor rect. In effect, this seems equivalent to make the reasoning faculty of the individual the ultimate arbiter of moral truth. It overlooks also the very deficiency in the moral reasoning of fallen man which made the provision of a teaching authority morally necessary. It finally over looks the fact that our Lord’s command to His Apostles was not “Go ye and demonstrate,” but “Go ye and teach.” Theologians ad mittedly seek to demonstrate, as best they can, the truths, which the Church teaches, but the validity of the truths themselves cannot be 171 measured by the success or failure of the theologians in their task. Not even an Aquinas could hope to satisfy everybody.10 11 10 Catholic Medical Quarterly, October 1966, p. 113; L.L. McRcavy. 11 Catholic Medical Quarterly, Oct. 1968, p. 113. '-Catholic Medical Quarterly, Oct. 1968, p. 113. But, “What does the argument of theologians matter, whether the Pope has spoken with all the requirements to make it an infallible pronouncement?” asks a British doctor.11 Are they infallible? And here is his answer. “Who, believing in the Holy Spirit as protector of the Church can accept as a possibility that God would allow the faithful to be misled so seriously by the Church? If we were to accept only what has been taught with all the solemnity of an infallible pronounce ment, very little of the Church’s teaching would remain that was not open to doubt; the hunt for loopholes would go on. Eventually as Henry VIII ended with six wives, once he had persuaded himself and many other (including some authorities in the Church) that it was legi timate for him to take a second wife, so we would end up with hav ing surrendered one moral law after another. Today John Fisher and Thomas Moore are honoured by all, not only by Catholics, for the stand they made. It is the belief in a divinely established Church, with eternal objective standards, against the concept of a man made Church that is at stake in the present crisis. Pope Paul has called for obe dience not only because of the reasons adduced in his Encyclical, but rather “because of the light of the Holy Spirit.” “Of course the Church will always be abused and ridiculed as often before as Christ has been, but would the world’s comments have been kinder if the Pope had appeared to concede “situation ethics”? The Church will alwavs be opposed as a “sign of contradiction.”12 Speaking on Oct; 5th, 1967, Pope Paul said this: “What is the greatest need of the Church at the present time? We shall give to day a most simple answer which you can understand and accept be cause you are good, faithful and fervent: the Church is in need of obedience. And more than a passive and enforced external obedience, she needs an inner spontaneous spirit of obedience.” 172 Indeed, this seems to be true today as it was over a year ago, and perhaps more so. Many of us entertain a certain sense of personal dignity which holds us back from obedience to legitimate authority, civil or ecclesiastical. Pope Pius XII in an address to a group of Cardinals. Archbishops and Bishops gathered in Rome, Nov. 2, 1954 analyzed this problem and gave us a few words of wisdom. Pope Pius XII said in part: “Those points We have just mentioned in connection with the jurisdiction of Bishops, who are shepherds of the souls com mitted to their care in all those matters which have to do with reli gion, moral law and ecclesiastical discipline, are subjected to criticism, often not above a whisper, and do not receive the firm assent they deserve. Hence, some proud, modern spirits provoke serious and dan gerous confusion, traces of which are more or less clear in various re gions. The awareness, daily more strongly insisted on, of having reached maturity produces in them an agitated and febril spirit. Not a few moderns, men and women, think that the leadership and vigilance of the Church is not to be suffered by one who is grown up; they not only say it, but they hold it as a firm conviction. They are unwill ing to be, like children, “under guardians and stewards” (Gal. 4,2). They wish to be treated as adults who are in full possession of their rights, and can decide for themselves what they must, or must not, do in any given situation. Let the Church — they do not hesitate to say — propose her doctrine, pass her laws as norms of our actions. Still, when there is question of practical application to each individual’s life, the Church must not interfere; she should let each one of the faithful follow his own conscience and judgment. They declare this is all the more neces sary because the Church and her ministers are unaware of certain sets of circumstances either personal or extrinsic to individuals; in them each person has been placed, and must take his own counsel and de cide what he must do. Such people, moreover, are unwilling in their final personal decisions to have any intermediary or intercessor placed between themselves and God, no matter what his rank or title. Two years ago, in Our allocutions of March 23 and April 18, 1952, We spoke about these reprehensible theories and We examined 173 their arguments (Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. 14, 1952, 19 sq., pp. 69 sq.). Concerning the importance given to the attainment of a per son’s majority, this assertion is correct: it is just and right that adults should not be ruled as children. The Apostle speaking of himself says: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away the things of a child” (1 Cor. 13,11). That is not a true part of edu cation which follows any other principle or procedure, nor is he a true shepherd of souls who pursues any other purpose than to elevate the faithful entrusted to his care “to perfect manhood, to the mature meas ure of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4,13). But to be an adult and to have put off the things of childhood is one thing, and quite an other to be an adult and not to be subject to the guidance and gov ernment of legitimate authority. For government is not a kind of mi sery for children, but the effective direction of adults toward the end proposed to the state. Since We are speaking to you, venerable brothers, and not to the faithful; when these ideas begin to appear and to take root in you: flocks, remind the faithful: (1) that God placed shepherds of souls in the Church not to put a burden on the flock, but to help and pro tect it; (2) that the true liberty of the faithful is safeguarded by the guidance and vigilance of pastors; that they are protected from the slavery of vice and error, they are strengthened against the temptations which come from bad example and from the customs of evil men among whom they must live; (3) that therefore they act contrary to the pru dence and charity which they owe themselves if they spurn this pro tection cf God and His most certain help.”