Boletin Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Media

Part of Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Title: Boletin Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas
Description: Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas Official Interdiocesan Organ is published monthly by the University of Santo Tomas and is printed at U.S.T. Press, Manila, Philippines.
Issue Date: Volume XLIII (Issue No. 478) January 1969
Publisher: University of Santo Tomas
Year: 1969
Language: English; Spanish
Subject: Catholic Church--Philippines--Periodicals.; Philippines -- Religion -- Periodicals.
Rights
Place of publication: Manila
extracted text: Boletin H Eclesiastico de VILIPINAS | ■*" OFFICIAL INTERDIOUtSAN ORGAN • THE PHILIPPINE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW • CONSCIENCE VERSUS AUTHORITY • RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS ARDENT SEARCH FOR GOD • WORLD DAY OF PEACE • PASTORAL LET TER ON “HUMANAE VITAE” • NA TURAL LAW • MEDICINE AND MO RALS • CONSCIENCE AND THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL. VOL XLIII NO. 478 Boletin Eclesiastico de piLIPINAS EDUORIAL STAFF EDITOR LEONARDO Z. LEGASPI. O.P. ASSISTANT EDITOR FIDEL V1LLAROEL, O.P. ASSOCIATE EDITORS FR ANCISO DEL RIO, O.P. QUINTIN M. GARCIA. O.P. JESUS MERINO, O.P. EFREN RIVERA, O.P. PEDRO V. SALGADO, O.P. POMPEYO DE MESA. O.P. BUSINESS MANAGER FLORENCIO TESTER A, O.P. BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Official Interdiocesan Organ is published monthly by the University of Santo Tomas and is printed at U.S.T. Press, Manila, Philippines. Entered as Second Class Mail Matter at the Manila Post Office on June 21, 1946. Subscription Rates: Yearly subscription in the Philippines, P15.00; Two Years, P26.00; Three Years, P40.00. Abroad, $5.00 a year. Price per copy, Pl.50. Subscriptions are paid in advance. Communications of an editorial nature concerning articles, cases and reviews should be addressed to the Editor. Advertising and subscription enquiries should be addressed to the Business Manager. Orders for renewals or changes of address should in clude both old and new address, and will go into effect fifteen days after notification. Address all communications to.BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Fathers' Residence University of Santo Tomas Manila D-403 Philippines Vol. XLIII • No. 478 January, 1969 TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL 2 THE POPE SPEAKS Holy Father on Responsibilities of Teachers 4 The Continual Ardent Search For God 8 DOCUMENTATION Changes in the Calendar for 1969 12 World Day of Peace (Liturgical Texts; 14 An Anthology: Peace in the Magisterium, by DOMINIC BAO, O.P. 27 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY OF THE PHILIPPINES Pastoral Letter on the Encyclical Letter “Humanae Vitae" 31 DOCTRINAL Natural Law. by P. LUMBRERAS, O.P. 49 Medicine and Morals 58 PASTORAL SECTION Homiletics — Septuagesima Sunday, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima and Sunday of Lent by DAVID TITHER, C.SS.R. 71 CASES AND QUERIES Conscience and Papal Encyclical, by MSGR. JOHN V. SHERIDAN 79 THE CHURCH HERE AND THERE 83 BOOK REVIEWS 90 EDITORIAL CONSCIENCE VERSUS AUTHORITY The Pill controversy is now entering a new phase and unearth ing an old issue: the right of conscience against the claims of authority. We are made to watch a seemingly purely conceptual bout, but yet so real that we feel nothing less than that our salva tion is at stake. This development would have been rather interesting, even welcomed, were it not for a dangerous assumption lurking behind this dramatic picture. It is the assumption that conscience and authority are conflicting notions, so that one can only hope to flourish and prosper at the expense of the other. Here again, as in so many cases, the real culprit is theological imprecision. Conscience and authority are too delicate to be treat ed lightly. The location involved, its limits, and conditions must be stated always with sufficient precision, sincerity and objectivity. It is theologically incorrect to take authority as always devoid of love, obsessed with power and oblivious of the human dignity. For authority is service, and service is the budding forth of love. Neither is it acceptable to view conscience as merely the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting according to one's judg ment or humour, without any thought or regard to the rights of God nor the duty to Him. Both understanding will naturally lead to the unfortunate conclusion we have mentioned above. We are aware that there are those who would tell us that the unsteady conscience seeks a sturdy norm. But yet, in the same breath, they deny the existence of such a norm, telling us that man must seek it bravely with the torment of his conscience, learning to live with darkness on every side. This is, we believe, an unpardonable affront to the wisdom and mercy of God. God did not and does not leave man to himself but has en tered history through the Word which is "the true light that en3 lightens all men. "(John 1:8). The Word speaks to us now and enlightens us through the Church's living doctrinal and jurisdiction al authority. In this perspective, conscience and authority are not conflict ing notions; within the divine ecclesial plan, each has its own place and function. Conscience is our awareness of the moral impera tives in life toward truth and virtue, our fellowmen and our God. While religious authority is the sufficient norm of our conscience, seeking not only our religious welfare here on earth, but also our ultimate salvation hereafter. If then we wish to find our bearing during this second phase of the Pill controversy we should avoid opposing one to the other. It is not by contrapositing conscience against authority that we can resolve the nagging moral problems of our times. No amount of discussion premised on this supposed conflict will lead us to truth and virtue. It is only when we take them as two friendly, inseparable guides, distinct but complementary, can we ever hope to find our way through the ever increasing confusions regarding the Pill controversy. THE POPE SPEAKS HOLY FATHER ON RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS On November 4th, the Holy Father received in special au dience, in St. Peter’s Basilica, those who took part in the ninth National Congress of the Italian Association of Catholic Teach ers. He addressed them as follows: We welcome this morning with great satisfaction your outstanding group, beloved sons and daughters, which embellishes the high and de manding name of Catholic Teachers. You are about 1,000 who have taken part, with the contribution 'of your preparation and experience, in the ninth National Congress of the Association. Your presence recalls the many occasions on which we have been interested in the develop ment of your Association during the pontificate of our venerated pre decessor, Pope Pius XII, as We also remember the first meeting that, from this Chair of Peter, We had with you in 1965. We greet you therefore, with great kindness, happy to be able again to state to the active and well-deserving President, to the regional directors and to the whole Italian Association of Catholic Teachers, Our word of esteem, of praise, and of pleasure. In seeing you, Our thoughts go to all the teachers—not only in Italy but We may say, in the whole world—to that magnificent, generous legion of men and women who, with incom parable dedication, with fidelity and a spirit of sacrifice, with silent and often obscure effort, devote themselves to so precious and irrepla ceable a work, which is that of the intellectual, civic, and moral forma tion of childhood. Honour to all of you, teachers! And to you, espe cially Catholic teachers! We wish that the time at Our disposal would permit Us to pause with you longer than We can; your cultural qualifications, your peda gogical responsibility, your Association would merit that. But if We are constrained by the pressure of daily duties unfortunately to curtail this happy and helpful stay in your midst, We wish at least to leave you a memory that, at the end of the work of the Congress, may provide encouragement and a blessing for you and your colleagues, so dear to Us. And Our word of remembrance is the watchword that We love to affirm, which begins the Conciliar Constitution Gaudium at spes, and is adapted to your special situation: “For the human person de serves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the pivotal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will” (n. 3), to be the pivot and centre of your interest and activity, that guides the pupil through his tenderest years, helps him attain that complete matu rity that makes him fit to take his place, fully conscious, in society and in the Church, according to the providential plan of God. The theme, truly stimulating and gripping, proposed this year to the National Congress, speaks of “responsibility and demands of the teaching profession today”. Now, it seems to Us that such responsi bility and demands ought effectively to identify with this task which cannot be renounced and which you have assumed with the choice of your noble profession. The teacher forms the man, the whole man, as the Council has frequently underlined: not one part of man, even if worthy of every attention and care, but his entirety as a person who thinks and judges, wills and loves, and develops himself in a precise social and community contest, from which he cannot and ought not to feel uprooted. The state of uneasiness throughout the world in secondary schools, of which you have rightly taken account in this Congress, finds its original justification here: in a school (system) that is perhaps isolated, crystalized, restricted to particular branches, forgetful of the complexity of the total formation of youth. And it is therefore right that the combined effort of educators be directed to the complete formation of man, who is contained as in a nutshell in the child who learns, and who will form the structural base of tomorrow’s society. This is already the purpose of elementary school 6 to which also applies that particular importance attributed by the Coun cil to schools in general, because it also “by virtue of its very purpose, while it cultivates the intellect with unremiting attention, (the school) ripens the capacity for right judgment, provides an introduction into the cultural heritage won by past generations, promotes a sense of va lues, and readies for professional life. By creating friendly contacts be tween students of diverse temperament and background, the school fos ters among them a willingness to understand one another.” (Gravissimum educationis, n. 5). All means must, therefore, be availed of; the customary teaching methods must be integrated with the new audio visual aids which are directed to the senses eager to learn, for open and complete intellectual preparation, which while necessarily adjusted to the capacity of the pupils and to the precise demands of programmes, must not be arid and pedantic theorizing nor a hasty smattering of bundles of facts. Education should be ordered gradually, harmoniously, to all human faculties, appealing to the heart and the imagination opening unlimited horizons on the. world, stimulating the will to dedi cate itself for the good of society. It should introduce the pupil to the highest levels of the religious and supernatural vision, offering help of the first order to the action which the Church, for its part, with complete autonomy, but also in loyal and active collaboration with the school, has the mission to carry out by divine mandate. Noble duties of responsibility and of faith Who does not see the responsibility that all this imposes on the teacher, also on the teacher of the primary school, indeed more so him who represents the first encounter of the child with the world of knowl edge. To him the child commits himself with all the spontaneity and trust of his innocent soul, easily led and anxious to leam. Your re sponsibilities are truly grave. They range from a continual bringing-upto-date of studies and pedagogical methods for your own cultural and spiritual preparation, to the animated work of the school, to contact with families, collaboration with colleagues, to the stimulating presence of the various forms of civic and social life that are related to educa tional action. 7 This, however, does not exhaust your generosity. In fact, you are called Catholic Teachers, and, as such, you assume responsibilities still greater and more demanding. How We should like to sing a hymn of gratitude to the teachers for all they have done and are doing in this delicate and very important sector! Who does not recall the exam ples, the words, the lessons of life received from his teachers? And who does not know that from them came for all of us the first invitation to a good and orderly life, founded on the necessity of study, but above all on the moral rectitude of the awareness of his duties before God and the world; the first secure attitude regarding permanent spiritual values; the first authoritative encouragement to do good, which gave so much satisfaction and joy to the child’s soul? Oh, what good teachers have done and are doing, offering their pedagogical art and their prestige, predisposing the child to the gradual and sublime action of education, which the Church develops to make of frail man an “angelic butterfly’’ destined for the vision and kingdom of God! Apostles of the Teaching of the Church You are the first to be convinced of it. You do not need that We should recall the responsibility that you have in fonning first your selves in order to form others; to live the Christian vocation in filial fidelity to the Law of God and to the reaching of the Church, in order to be its vehicle and apostles; to understand the needs of the times in which we live in order not to betray them by one’s own absenteeism, but to guide them to the goal, to that single answer which today as always can alone satisfy them, because it alone comes from God to man, created and redeemed by Him. Beloved sons and daughters! To accomplish all this let Our words encourage you, and Our prayer accompany you. We invoke for you the constant illumination of Christ, the Divine Master; in his Name We bless you so that he may grant to you, to your pupils, to your colleagues “according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might unto the inward man... that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3, 16, 19). THE CONTINUAL ARDENT SEARCH FOR GOD The exhortation of Pope Paul VI to the large numbers of faithful present at the General Audience on November 20th, 1968 dealt with a subject of the greatest interest and of absolute priority: the search for God. The Pope explained it especially with regard to the many errors of those who, today, debar the human intellect from reaching its real, supreme goal: that is, Truth and Life, the radiance of God. Restlessness prompts every activity of our time Beloved sons and daughters! Listen to these simple and amazing words: we must search for God! Search for him, why?. Oh! how long it would take to answer this question well! We should reflect, in the first place, on the funda mental fact that life is a search: all men are seekers of something, love, which qualifies and fills rhe life of man, is a search. Life is qualified, defined and measured by what it seeks. Today more than ever man is in search of new things, of new plenitude. The restlessness which char acterizes the activity of our times, is nothing but a search that has be come absorbing, feverish, more and more interesting and fruitful, and at the same time more and more uncertain, tiring and often disconsolate and disappointing. To seek, is the programme of culture, science, work, politics. The more one finds, the more one seeks. The more one has found, the more one desires and hopes to find. It is a sign that man always lacks something, if he always wishes and is driven to seek. Nothing satisfies him. If he had everything, he would go on seeking, for this is man’s nature: he must grow, he must conquer, he must expand continually. Even if wisdom convinces him “to be con tent with little” (Manzoni) in the possession of a few goods, it does so in order to make him long for and possess higher goods, the goods of the spirit, for example. 9 “He must be sought endlessly because he must be loved endlessly.” But now We say: we must seek God! And the first reason is perfectly obvious. Because he is hidden. “God is not an invention, he is a discovery” (Zundel, “Recherche du Dieu inconnu”, 7). In his famous speech at the Areopagus of Athens, St. Paul takes his argu ment from “the unknown God” (Acts 17, 23). Could we not disciples of Christ and pupils of the teaching Church, claim to know already, and how much!, the name, the mystery and the reality of the living God? Yes and no: this is important. We must be happy to have the immense, luminous, beatifying knowledge of the ineffable name of God that our religious doctrine offers us; but we must always remember what we do not know about God is far more than what we do know about him. With our mind we can only reach God as an unknown Being, and “while we arrive at knowing what God is not—St. Thomas teaches us—what he is in his intimate essence remains quite unknown to us” (Contra Gentes, III, 49); moreover an Ecumenical Council (the fourth Lateran Council—cfr. Denz, Sch. 806—formerly 432) reminds us “that it is impossible to establish a similarity between Creator and creature without realizing that the dissimilarity is greater”. God must always be sought; God must always be discovered: “he must be sought endlessly because he must be loved endlessly”; in fact “the greater the love, the more must one seek to know what the search has revealed”, says St. Augustine, always aflame (Enarr. in Ps. 104, 3; P. L. 37, 1392). The objection of the contemporary mind But we, men of today, object: what is the use of seeking God? a God hidden in this wav? Is not the little we know, or think we know, sufficient? Is it not better to turn cur thought to the study of things more in proportion with cur cognitive faculties? science, psychology? that is, the world and man? This is the great objection put forward by the contemporary mind, which is bent on rational and experimental knowledge, and things that thev are sufficient for the hungry seeking of the human spirit; in fact it thinks that it >s auite necessary to set this limit to the thought and the experience of the modern man. This can be admitted as a criterion of method applied to a specific use of the human mind, provided it does net close the horizon to a vaster, deeper 10 and obligatory search, as the Council teaches us several times (cfr. Gaudium et spes, nn. 36, 59, 19; Apostolican actuositatem, n. 7; etc.) But this criterion, which defines the sphere of natural reason, has over stepped its rightful place in our culture, both theoretical and practical, turning its legitimate prerogatives into negative dogmas, and readily barring the progress of seeking. It turns so-called secularization into secularism, lay activity into anti-clericalism, critical and positive science into systematic demythization and a neo-positivism with purely pheno menological tendencies (cfr. structuralism), profane study into aggres sive desacralization; that is, it aims at reducing the areas of culture within the limits of useful and practical possibilities, at taking away the thought of God from every field of man’s knowledge and action, at closing his eyes to the mystery of God’s all-pervading and irrepressible Reality, at weakening “religious” effort, at preventing the upward pro cess of the spirit and at placating the inborn and profound aspirations cf man with inadequate answers, limiting his horizon to external things and things of the senses, at the level of temporal goods, worthy in itself, but closed and insufficient, thus deceiving him with a precarious and inadequate happiness. It is forgotten that man in all his spiritual being, that is, in his highest faculties of knowing and loving, is correlative with God; man is made for him; and every conquest of the human spirit increases his uneasiness, and stimulates his desire to go further, to arrive at the ocean of being and of life, at the full truth, which only beatitude gives. To take away God as the goal of the search, God to whom man is inclined by his nature, means mortifying man himself. The so-called “death cf God” ends in the death of man. With his highest faculties man is made for God It is not We alone that affirm such a sad truth. Here is a testi mony left by a very cultured avant-garde writer and a unhappy type of modern culture (Klaus Mann, the son of Thomas). He wrote: “There is no hope. We intellectuals, traitors or victims, would do well to recognize our situation as being absolutely desperate. Why should we cherish false hopes? We are lost! We are defeated! “The voice that 11 uttered these words—the testimony continues—a voice somewhat low, but pure, harmonious and strangely moving, was that of student of philosophy and literature, whom I met bv chance in the old University town of Uppsala. What he had to say was interesting, and it was in any case characteristic. I have heard similar declarations bv intel lectuals all over Europe... And he said in a voice that was no longer quite firm: ‘We should abandon ourselves to absolute despair’...” (II Ponte, 1949, 1463-1464). Let us think of God Beloved sons, for us it is not so, no. The search is neither stopped by the materialistic or agnostic conceptions of contemporary mentality, nor disappointed by its ever incomplete satisfaction. For us it is always right and fruitful. Reason, supported bv faith, and faith by grace, are moving onwards without rest towards the invisible God (cfr. St. Augus tine, De videndo Deo, Ep. 147; P.L. 33, 596 ss.); and this onward movement is polarized, in so many different wavs, towards the central goal of human and Christian vocation (cfr. St. Benedict: si vere Deum quaerit. . . Reg. 58); and also in this continuous and tiring itinerary of ours towards Truth, which is Life, the search has a dynamism of its own, which refreshes it and encourages it, through the happiness of incipient discovery: “We seek—in order to find him mere sweetly, and we find him in erder to seek him even more eagerly” (De Trin. 15, 2; P.L. 42, 1058). But how are we to set about it? you will ask. Oh, the discourse becomes longer and more difficult! We may perhaps return to it; but not at present. Now We wish merely to tell you of an admonition which made an agreeable, grave impression on Us when We read it, a good many years ago now, in a photograph of a very crowded street in a large Dutch citv: a banner, stretched from one side of the street to the other above the feverish traffic, bore the following words in large letters: think of God. A strange reminder, this, flung into the busy, profane movement of modern life; but a wise one. Let us think of God! He is always near. We always need him. The meeting, dis turbing and happy one, is always possible: yes, let us think of God. With Our Apostolic Blessing. SACRA CONGREGATIO RITUUM Declaratio Cum recentioribus temponbus quaedam Conferentiae Episcopales ab Apostolica Sede facultatem obtinuerint transferendi solemnitates Epiphaniae et Ascensionis Domini ac Corporis Christi in dominicam, ablata praecepti obligatione in eorum die proprio, plures quaestiones rubricales ortae sunt quoad ordinationem Celebrationis Missae et Officii divini. Dum exspectatur Breviarii et Missalis instauratio qua modo cele brationis pro his casibus aptius providebitur, haec Sacra Congregatio Rituum declarat, in locis ubi supradicta festa iam non sunt de praecepto, adveniente anno 1969 servandum esse Calendarium quod sequitur: Die 5 ianuarii, Dominica: In Ephiphania Domini, I cl. Die 6 ianuarii, feria II: SS. Nominis Iesu, II cl. Die 14 maii, feria IV: De ea, IV cl.—Comm. S. Bonifatii Mart. Die 15 maii, feria V: S. Ioannis Baptistae de la Salle, Conf. Ill cl. Die 16 maii, feria VI: S. Ubaldi, Ep. Conf., Ill cl. Die 16 maii, Sabb.: Vigilia Ascensionis, II cl. Die 18 maii, Dominica: In Ascensione Domini, I cl. Lectiones e Sacra Scriptura pro diebus 14, 15 et 16 maii sumuntur respective quae in Breviario Romano assignatur feriae VI (die 14), sabbato (die 15) et dominicae (die 16) post festum Ascensionis, cum responsoriis hebdomadae praecedentis. Die 14 antiphonae ad Benedictus et Magnificat sumuntur e dominica praecedenti. Die 5 iunii, feria V: S. Bonifatii, Ep. Mart., Ill cl. Die 6 iunii, feria VI: S. Norberti, Ep. Conf., Ill cl. Die 7 iunii, sabbato: De S. Maria in Sabbato, IV cl. Die 8 iunii, Dominica: SS.mi Corporis Christi, I cl. 13 Lectiones e Sacra Scriptura cum suis responsoriis, pro diebus 5, 6. et 7 iunii sumuntur respective quae in Breviario Romano assignatur feriae VI (die 5), sabbato (die 6) post dominicam I post Pentecosten, et dominicae II post Pentecosten (die 7). Ex Aedibus S. Congregationis Rituum, die 18 Octobris 1968. Benno Card. Gut, Praef. Ferdinandus Antonelli Archip. tit. Idicrensis S. C. R. a Secretis WORLD DAY OF PEACE —1st January, 1969 The Holy See has prepared the following liturgical texts for the worthy celebration of the World Day of peace, which will be held every year on the first day of January. LITURGICAL TEXTS I. SCHEMAS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORD II. SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS A. Initial greetings B. Readings from the Old Testament C. Responsorial Psalms D. Readings from the Apostles E. Readings from the Gospel F. Intentions for Universal Prayer G. Prayers of the President H. Concluding prayers of blessing III. SELECTION OF CONCILLAR TEXTS FOR THE HOMILY IV. VOTIVE MASS FOR PEACE 15 I SCHEMAS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORD FIRST SCHEMA 1. The celebration begins with the singing of a suitable chant by the assembly. 2. Prayer cf the President Almighty and eternal God, Governor of all things in heaven and on earth, mercifully hear the prayers of your people and grant us your peace in our days. Through Christ our Lord. (Roman Missal, 2nd Sunday after the Epiphanv) 3. Reading from the Old Testament Sir 4,1-11 (Greek, 1-10): The rights of the poor and the oppressed, the widow and the orphan. 4. Responsorial Psalm Ps 84,9ab-10, 11-12, 13-14 R (9) : Let me hear what the Lord God will speak, for he will speak peace to his people. 5. Reading from the Apostle Col 3,9b-13: And above all put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 6. Acclamation of the Gospel Alleluia Mt 3,9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. 7. Reading from the Gospel Lk 10, 23-37: Love of God and neighbour. Parable of the Good Samaritan. 16 8. Homily If there is no one to give the homily, a reading may be made from the Conciliar texts suggested in Section III. Silence 9. A suitable hymn may be sung by the assembly. 10. Universal Prayer. A. Repentance In the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ who came to serve all men and bring them peace, let us humbly confess our sins and do penance. For our indifference towards all the ways in which our fellow men are oppressed and exploited, I‘ Lord, we ask your forgiveness. For our insensitivity to the sufferings of peoples in need and out slowness in going to their aid, B Amen. For our wasteful habits and our unbridled seeking of our own well-being and comfort, Lord, we ask your forgiveness. For the unfriendliness of our welcome to immigrants of other races and colours, and our superior attitude towards them, 1» Lord, we ask your forgiveness. For our unconcern in the face of living conditions, of housing and labour, which are a degradation for men, Lord, we ask your forgiveness. B. Intercession That the Church may faithfully proclaim the Gospel of peace and put herself still more at the service of all men, Let us pray the Lord. B Lord, God of peace, hear our prayer. 17 That all those who govern peoples may seek the good of all, and be not guided by personal ambition or the desire for power, Let us pray the Lord. B Lord, God of peace, hear our prayer. That during the year 1969 all men of good will may work together for justice, liberty and peace, Let us pray the Lord. H Lord, God of peace, hear our prayer. That all those who are today suffering from any form of op pression may receive from Christians understanding and support, Let us pray the Lord. 1‘ Lord, God of peace, hear our prayer. That our Christian faith and our brotherly love may be shown in a more concrete effort to bring about universal peace, Let us pray the Lord. 1‘ Lord, God of peace, hear our prayer. 11. The Lord’s Prayer By the sacrifice of his life Jesus became “our peace”, and he declared that they who work for peace are blessed; let us pray now to the one Father of us in the way he showed us: Our Father..................... The Lord’s Prayer mav be ended with the traditional doxology: For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. 12. Act of charity The faithful may be encouraged to give expression to their desire for peace by perfcnning a concrete action, either individual or col lective: inviting a stranger to a family meal, giving neighbour a helping hand, helping a person or family in need, making a con tribution to an international organization, etc. 13. The celebration may be ended with a chant sung by the whole assemblv. 18 SECOND SCHEMA 1. The celebration begins with the singing of a suitable chant by the assembly. 2. Greeting for the President The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. K Amen. (2 Cor 13,13) 3. First Reading Is 11,1-91 The coming of the King of justice and peace. 4. Responsorial Psalm Ps 71,2, 3-4ab, 7-8, 12-13, 17 1‘ In his days may righteousness flourish, and peace abound. 5. Reading of the Gospel ]n 13,1-17: “You also oOgkt to wash one another’s feet.” 6. Homily If there is no one to give the homily, a reading may be made from one of the Conciliar texts, suggested in Section II. Silence. 7. Universal Prayer Conscious of our vocation as Christians to be peacemakers, and in union with all men who desire peace, let us prav to the one Father cf us all. As you willed Jesus to speak the words, “Blessed are the peacemakers”, so inspire vour Church to strive ever mere earnest ly for the brotherhood of all men and the world’s peace. !• Amen. Since peace can be built on no other foundation than justice, liberty and love, grant, Lord, that all men may lock upon each other a; your children. I‘ Amen. 19 Grant that national leaders may be animated not by egoism, nor by personal or national ambition, but by your own Spirit of love in their concern for the good of all. B Amen. Comforter of the afflicted, have pity on the victims of wars, revolutions and oppression of whatever sort. B Amen. Grant that during this year 1969 we may all of us seek to bring justice to the poor and to establish peace among men. B Amen. 8. Prayer of the President (or of the whole assembly) Lord, God of peace, who in ycur loving kindness towards man, created him to be the partaker of ycur glory, we bless you and we give you thanks: For you have sent to us Jesus, ycur beloved Son, and have made him, in his paschal mystery, the author of all salvation, the source of all peace and the bond of all brother hood. We give you thanks for the desires, the efforts and the achievements which your Spirit of peace has inspired in our days, stirring up love where there was hate, sympathy where there was suspicion, solidarity where there was indifference. Open our spirits and cur hearts still more to the con crete needs of love for all our brothers, so that we may be truly makers of peace. Remember, Father of mercies, all those who are oppressed, who suffer and die, in bringing to birth a world of more gen uine brotherliness. May your kingdom of justice, peace and love ccme for men of every race and tongue, and may all the earth be filled with your glory. 20 Amen. (Prayer of Pope Paul VI on 1st January, 1968) 9. Prayer of dismissal by the President May the God of peace equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in you that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. K Amen. (Heb 13,20b-21) 10. The celebration may be ended with a chant sung by the whole assembly. 11 SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS A. INITIAL GREETINGS 1. 1 Tim 1,2b: To you be grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 2. Gal 1,3-3: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins .. , according to the will for our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. 3. Spanish Liturgy: The grace of God the Father almighty, the the peace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be always with you. B. READINGS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. Ex 22, 20-26: Respect for the stranger, the widow and the orphan; the kindly loan, restoration of pledges 2. Is 38,1-12: The fasting pleasing to the Lord is the practice of justice and charity. 3. Mich 4,1-3: The kingdom of peace of God in Sion. 4. zacb 9,9-10: The reign of peace of the Messiah-King. 21 C. RESPONSORIAL PSALMS 1. Ps 33,2-3, 4-3, 6-7, 8-9 Ps 33,10-11, 12-13, 14-13, 16-17, 18-19, K (2a) : I will bless the Lord at all times. or (9a) : O taste and see that the Lord is good. 2. Ps 102, 1-2, 3-4, 6 and 8, 13-14 I» (8) : The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. 3. Ps 111,1-2, 3-4, 3-6, 7-8, 9 (1): Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments. 4. Ps 121, 1-2, 3-4a, 4b-3, 6-7, 8-9 K (1): I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord”. or (Sir 36, 16) : Give peace Lord, to those who wait for thee. 5. Ps 144, 1-2, 8-9, 10-11, 13cd-14, 13-16 1‘ (18a) : The Lord is near to all who call on him. D. READINGS FROM THE APOSTLES 1. Eph 4, 1-6: “One God and Father of us all”. 2. Eph 4, 22-32: “Are we not members one of another?” 3. 1 Cor 13, 1-13: “If I have not love, I am nothing”. 4. 2 Cor 8, 9-13: “For your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich”. 3. Jas 2, 14-24: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead”. 6. 1 Jn 3, 14-24: “We ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren”. 7. 1 Jn 4, 7-12: “If we love one another, God abides in us”. 22 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. E. READINGS FROM THE GOSPEL Mt 5, 27-26: Murder and words of offence. Reconciliation with enemies. Mt 3, 38-42: Not revenge, but submission. Mt 3, 43-48: Love even of enemies. Lk 6, 27-36: “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”. Mk 6, 32-44: The multiplication of the loaves. Mt 18, 21-33: The forgiveness of injuries. The parable of the unjust debtor. F. INTENTIONS FOR UNIVERSAL PRAYER For peace between nations For the men of all countries, that they act not as enemies or aliens but welcome each other as brothers, let us pray the Lord. For the rulers of nations and those who assist them For all those who exercise government, that they may make effective the rule of justice and right, let us beg the strength of God. (Prayer of Pope Gelasius) For the Third World For the developing nations, that they may progress in well-being both of body and of spirit, let us pray the Lord. For the oppressed For our brothers who are victims of the abuse of wealth and power, that they be speedily restored to their human dignity, let us pray the Lord. For the hungry For all men who are tortured by hunger, that they may find, in 23 a more equitable distribution of earthly goods, all that they need for their sustenance, let us pray the Lord. 6. For the homeless For families who have no home, that they may quickly find a place in which they can lead a decent and happy life, let us pray the Lord. 7. For the illiterate For those who are deprived of education, that the bodies respons ible for public instruction may truly work to their advantage, let us pray the Lord. 8. For workers That all men may find in a just and profitable employment the fulfilment of their vocation, both human and divine, let us pray the Lord. 9. For scientists and technicians For scientists and technicians, that by their researches and their labours they may make accessible to all men on earth a happy and a more worthy life, let us pray the Lord. G. PRESIDENTIAL PRAYERS 1. O Lord, let peace guide the course of world events, that your Church may serve you in joy and security. Through Christ our Lord. (Roman Missal, 4th Sunday after Pen tecost) 2. O God, the author and lover of peace; to know whom is to live and to serve whom is to reign, defend your people against all attacks, so that we who trust in vour protection mav live without fear of any enemy. Through Christ our Lord. (Reman Missal, Votive Mass for Peace) 24 3. O God, creator of the world and Lord of history, in your good ness hear our prayers. Grant in our days an untroubled peace, so that we may unhindered praise your love with songs of joy. Through Christ our Lord. (Gelasian Sacramentary) 4. O God, of peace, you are yourself our peace. The spirit of dis cord can find no place in your presence nor can vengeance gain your favour. Preserve in good the hearts of the peaceful, and heal the hearts of the wayward by driving evil from their minds. Through Christ our Lord. (Gelasian Sacramentary) H. CONCLUDING PRAYERS OF BLESSING 1. 2 Thess 3, 16a: May the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in all ways. 2. Rom 13, 13: May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope. 3. Phil 4, 7: May the peace of God, which surpasses all un derstanding keep your hearts and minds in Christ J^sus. Ill SELECTION OF CONCILIAR TEXTS FOR THE HOM1LITY A. PASTORAL CONSTITUTION “GAUDIUM ET SPES” 1. The human condition today : n.4. 2. The aspirations of the contemporary world : n.9. 3. Man created in God’s image : n.I2. 4. The excellence of liberty : n.17. 5. Man renewed in Christ : n.22. 6. The unity of mankind according to God’s will : n.24. 7. The interdependence of person and society : n. 25. 8. Promoting the common good : n.26. 9. Respect for the human person : n. 27. 25 10. The equality of men and social justice : n.29. 11. The value and standards of human activity: nn.34-35. 12. The right of all men to culture : n.60. 13. The economic situation today : n.63. 14. Economic development in the service of man : nn.64-65. 15. Economic and social inequalities : n.66. 16. The right to work and the conditions of work : n.67. 17. The right to form labour unions : n.68. 18. The common purpose of earthly goods : n.69. 19. The right to private property : n.71. 20. The collaboration of all in political life : n.75. 21. The nature of peace : n.78. 22. International cooperation : nn.85-90. B. DECREE “INTER MIRIFICA” The right to information : n. 5 . C. DECLARATION “GRAVISSIMUM EDUCATIONIS” The right to education : n. 1. D. DECLARATION “DIGNITATIS HUMANAE” The right to religious liberty : nn.2-8, 10, 15. PRAYER FOR PEACE O Lord, the God of Peace, You Who have created men and show them Your benevolence, so that they may share as sons in ycur glory, we bless You and we give thanks to You: Because vou have sent us Jesus Your well-beloved Son, and, through the mystery 26 of his Resurrection, You have made Him the worker of all salvation, the source of all peace, the bond of all brotherhood. We give thanks to You for the desires, the efforts, the achievements stirred up by Your Spirit of peace in our time, to replace hate by love, mistrust by understanding, indifference by interdependence. Open cur minds and our hearts ever wider to the real demands of the love of all our brothers, so that we may become more completely peacemakers. Remember, O Father of mercy, all those who struggle, suffer and die to bring forth a world of closer brotherhood. May Your Kingdom of justice, of peace and of love, come to men of every race and every tongue. And may the earth be filled with Your glory! Amen. AN ANTHOLOGY: PEACE IN THE MAGISTERIUM Here if a series of references to the texts of Pope Paul VI and of the Second Vatican Council which constitutes an anthology of the most recent statements of the Magisterium. • Fr. Dominic Bao, O.P. PEACE IS CONSTRUCTIVE But among numerous impressions this on remains... It is peace that has accomplished this prodigy... “Blessed are th..; peace makers, Christ the Lord says, for they shall be called the children of God '. (Matt. 5,9) (The Poce at Montecassino, Oss. Rom., November 6 1964, p. 1, col. 1, 2: “The virtue of peace”). APPEAL TO THE GOVERNORS At the moment of leaving the soil of India... It is the object of Our instant prayer and Our most ardent wishes. ("For peace of men”. Oss. Rom., December 18 1964 p. 7, col. 4, Bombay). RECALL OF THE HORRIBLE PLAGUE It seems almost impossible to us, while the past horrible plague is stiii living in our memory. . . We have recourse today, with full confidence... Our supplications to the Most Blessed Virgin. (General audience February 11, Oss. Rom., February 19, 1965, p. 1, col. 3-4). THE ANGUISH THAT WE FEEL W.e have received with emotion the message to which you have expres sed your concern about... 28 . . and they will know how to use the means in order to establish a peace which is durable and effectively guaranteed. (To the Vietnamese Episcopacy, February 13., Oss. Rom., p. 12, col. 5 February 26, 1965). TO LOVE, TO SERVE, TO INSPIRE PEACE We have, then, three things to tell you. . . . Jesus, the Prince of peace, possesses his peace, a peace which is charac teristic and original... It regulates all relations with God. (Discourse during the Mass at “Yankee Stadium” in New York, Oss. Rom., October 15 1965, p. 11, col. 1,2). THE CHRISTIAN PEACE At the same time we note to what extent the world... to elevate the thoughts of men towards the ideals of peace, of concord, of collaboration and of fraternity. (Discourse to the Sacred College of Cardinals. Oss. Rom., July 3 .1964, p. 8, col. 1). OUR DIALOGUE But we cannot turn Our gaze from the contemporary world... so as to diffuse in all institutions and in all souls the understanding, the relish and the duty of peace. (Encyclical letter ECCLESIAM SUAM: “The Dialogue of peace”. Oss. Rom., August 14 1964, p. 7, col. 2). MEN OF GOOD WILL! We wish to write it in golden letters on the horizon of history... We transmit it to the world with Our salutation and Our Blessing. (Discourse at Castel Gandolfo, “Appeal to peace”. Oss. Rom., September 4 1964, p. 1, col. 3). THE SITUATION IS UNCERTAIN AND MORE OBSCURE THAN EVER The second motive of this exhortation comes from the situation that... from one moment to the other, to unleash the explosion of a new terrifying (Encyclical letter Mense Majo., Oss. Rom. May 7 1965, p. 1, col. 2). 29 PEACE IS A GIFT OF GOD But peace, Venerable Brothers, is not simply Our work. .. having recourse also to the intercession and to the patronage of the Virgin Mary, the Queen of peace. (Encyclical letter Mens.e Majo., Oss. Rom., May 7 1965, p. 1, col. 3). THE CONCORD AMONG THE CITIZENS Without concord among the citizens, without public order, without colla boration ... to Christ Who has come bringing peace to the World... to all faithfuls of this nation the greatest Apostolic Blessing. Radiomessage for “Radio Loyola”, in Bolivia. Oss. Rom., August 6 1965, p. 8, col. 3). THE UNITED-NATIONS, GREAT SCHOOL For have, Gentlemen, accomplished, and are accomplishing a great work: you teach peace to men... Your sentiments of humanity and of generosity inspire Us. For on.e another. To speak of humanity, of generosity... of PACEM IN TERRIS has found among you a resonance very honorable and very sig nificant. (Discourse to the assembly of UN.—Oss. Rom., Oc tober 8 1965, p. 1, col. 4). THE SUPREME GOOD OF PEACE Here is the first aspect that the presence of the Church is interested in revealed by Christ, their certain justification, the secret which facilitates its practice, and makes it discover its happiness. (Radiomessage of Christmas.- Oss. Rom., December 24 1965, p. 1, col. 4, 5). WHO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL PEACE And then, the sixth axiom, the most disputed and the most difficult and that invites Us rather to another consideration which We approach now at the end of those synthetic observations. (Discourse to the Worldwide Movement of Christian Workers. Oss. Rom., June 3 1966, p. 2, col. 3, 4). 30 THE DUTY OF PUTTING AN END TO THE INHUMANITY OF WAR Gaudium at Spes. nn. 79, 80, 81. THE NATURE OF PEACE Gaudium at Spes, n. 78. TOWARD THE ABSOLUTE BANNING OF WAR. INTERNATIONAL ACTION FOR AVOIDING WAR Gaudium at Spes, n. 82. THE CAUSES OF DISCORDS AND THEIR REMEDIES Gaudium at Spes, n. 83. THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Gaudium et Spes, n. 84. THE COOPERATION OF THE ECONOMIC PLAN Gaudium et Spes, n. 85. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 36. Decree Dignitatis Humanae, n. 6. PEACE, INTIMATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOD AND MEN Decree ad Gentes divinitus, n. 3 Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, n. 76. THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO EDUCATION, ITS NOTION Declaration de Educatione Christiana, n. 1. THE CHURCH SENT BY CHRIST Decree ad Gentes, chap. 1, n. 5. ACTIVE PRESENCE OF THE CHURCH ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, n. 89. CATHOLIC HIERARCHY OF THE PHILIPPINES PASTORAL LETTER ON THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER “ HUMANAE VITAE” To the Very Reverend Clergy and the Catholic People of the Philippines Grace and Peace from our Lord, Jesus Christ. In Bogota, last August 24th, the Holy Father said to the Latin American Bishops, when he opened their second General Assembly: “Speak, speak, preach, write, take a position, as is said, in harmony of plan and intention, for the defense and elucidation of the truths of the faith, on the actuality of the Gospel, on the questions which interest the life of the faithful and the defense of Christian morality, on the ways which lead to dialogue with the separated brethren, on the drama, now great and beautiful, now sad and dangerous, of contemporary civiliza tion.’” By these words, the Holy Father has reaffirmed a pastoral function which the bishops of the whole Catholic world have considered more urgent now than ever before. In the fulfillment of this function, it was our intention to issue this Joint Pastoral Letter on the Humanae Vitae during our next plenary meeting to be held in January 1969. But, while the sentiments of loyalty to the authority of the Holy Father and the sincere acceptance of his teaching on the part of the majority of his flock have scarcely been mentioned in the international press, the adverse comments coming from a relatively small portion of the faithful have been played up. And there is danger that this adverse 1 L’Oiscrvatore Romano, English, Sept. 5, 1968. publicity might affect the filial attitude of respect and reverence of our people towards the person of the Vicar of Christ on earth. So without waiting for our plenary meeting in January, We have decided to issue this Pastoral Letter now, on this day of the Feast of the Maternity of Our Blessed Mother. I For the past few years a good portion of the Catholic world had been waiting for the decision of the Holy Father cn the question of the regulation of birth. Now that he has given us, his children in Christ, the right moral guidance, “by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ,” it behooves us all to accept his word with filial love and to follow it faithfully and loyally, since it is the word of the one who now sits on the chair of St. Peter. He and the other Apostles were consti tuted by Christ “as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the mor law, that is to say, not only of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law which is likewise an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation.”2 The nature and importance of the Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae were described by Pope Paul VI himself in Bogota when he said: . .the law which We have reaffirmed involves a strong moral sense and a courageous spirit of sacrifice. God will bless this worthy Christian attitude. It is not a blind race towards overpopulation; it does not diminish the responsibility or the liberty of husband and wife and does not forbid them a moral and reasonable limitation of birth: it does not hinder any lawful therapy or the progress of scientific research. It is a moral and spiritual education that is coherent and profound; it excludes the use of means which profane marital relations and which aim at re solving the great problems of population with overfacile expedients; it is, ultimately, a defense of life, the gift of God, the glory of the family, the strength of the people.”3 2 Humanae Vitae, No. 4. •* L’Oiservatore Romano, ib. 33 In spite of this, there has been opposition to the Encyclical even from among Catholics. This was, however, to be expected. The Holy Father says: “It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: tco numerous are these voices—amplified by the modem means of propaganda — which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a ‘sign of contradiction’; yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.”4 But the Encyclical Letter is the best defense of itself. If studied conscientiously by a Catholic, with an open mind, free from the pre judices that propaganda has planted in the minds of many in favor of artificial regulation of birth, it cannot fail to convince the reader of the soundness of the position the Holy Father has taken. For this reason, We exhort you, faithful children of the Church, to read the Encyclical in its entirety and to ponder upon its teachings in the presence of God. But do not look at the question from the point of view of “an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and of his life,” as Pope John XXIII advised when he wrote about recent developments of the social question/' for then you will find unacceptable the courage and spirit of sacrifice it calls for. Since this is a question which affects your Christian life, it must be viewed with supernatural faith. Anthrcpo-centered humanism cannot be the guiding principle of Christian living. The Encyclical is not concerned merely about the prohibition of acts which are “intrinsically dishonest”. Rather, it stresses the beauty and dignity of conjugal love. It states very clearly that it has its origin in God, Who is Love, that it has been elevated to sacramental dignity, that the interpersonal communion of the spouses is a symbol of the union of Christ and the Church. The document brings to light and explains the characteristic marks of conjugal love: that it belongs not only to the physical nature of man but also to his spirit, that is why it is fully '• Humanae Vitae, No. 18. ■'Humanae Vitae. No. 2J. 34 human; that it is a special friendship in which the spouses make a total gift of self to each other; that it is faithful and exclusive until death; and that, in its fecundity, it overflows into the raising up of children. Marriage is a wise institution established by God to realize in and for mankind his design of love. The chaste intimacy of husband and wife is “noble and worthy” and it is ordained toward their mutual per fection and to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives. On the pastoral aspect of the question, the Encyclical teaches three points of doctrine pertaining to the Christian life of Catholic couples, to wit: a) that “It is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life”"; b) that Christians should learn to master instinct with the aid of ascetical practices; c) that supported by their Christian faith and hope, by persevering prayer and by the frequent reception of the Sacra ments of the Eucharist and Penance, Catholic couples will be able to surmount the difficulties that this teaming of the Church entails. That is why the Holy Father exhorts priests, “by vocation the coun sellors and spiritual guides of individual persons and of families,” “to expound the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity’; but this “must ever be accompanied by patience and goodness, such as the Lord Himself gave example of in dealing with men. Having come not to condemn but to save, He was intransigent with evil, but merciful to wards individuals.”' The Holy Father’s hope is that, “In their difficulties, may married couples always find, in the words and in the heart of a priest, the echo of the voice and of the love of the Redeemer,”* 7 8 °Mt. 7, 13. 7 Humanae Vitae, Nos. 28 and 29. 8 Humanae Vitae. No. 29. II For this reason We now want to address ourselves more in parti cular to you, our beloved Clergy. We are confident that you have ac 35 cepted this Encyclical with loyalty and obedience. At the same time We are aware of a special pastoral problem you may encounter with tho$e who would come to you with difficulties of conscience, especially those who are honestly convinced that the use of artificial contraceptives is not contrary to motal law. Since their conscience must be their guide on matters of morals, you might find it hard to give a satisfactory solution to this pastoral problem. So let us devote a part of this Letter to this aspect of the question. To begin with, We cannot dismiss the prohibition contained in the Encyclical as a trivial matter. Refusal to accept it is a serious matter of disobedience because by its nature it is an authoritative teaching which commands assent. The Holy Father said in a general audience a few days after he signed the Encyclical: “To you We shall sav only a few words, not so much of the document, as on some of the feelings that filled Our mind during the long period of its preparation. The first feeling was that of a very grave responsibility. It led Us into and sus tained Us in the very heart of the problem during the four years devoted to the study and preparation of this Encyclical. We confide to you that this feeling caused Us much spiritual suffering. Never before have We felt so heavily, as in this situation, the burden of Our office. We studied, read and discussed as much as We could and We also prayed very much about it. . . We read the scientific reports about the alarm ing population problems in the world, often backed up by the studies of experts and by government programmes. Publications reached Us from all parts of the world, some inspired by the examination of parti cular scientific aspects of the problem, others by a realistic aspects of the problem, others by a realistic reflection on serious sociological conditions, and still others by the pressing considerations of the changes invading every sector of modern life. How often have We felt almost over whelmed by this mass of documentation! . . The Holy Father cer tainly does not consider this a matter of little consequence. Conscience is the judgement that one makes about the morality of actions. It is the proximate and immediate subjective rule by which man determines the moral category of his action: whether it is right or * 0 L’Osservatore Romano, English Aug. 8, 1968. 36 wrong, good or bad. This subjective rule is, of course, his individual application of the objective standard of morality, the law. The II Vatican Council says this about conscience: “In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom he was created. It follows tl.a<- he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.”10 In another document, the Council says: “The gospel has a sacred reverence for the dignity of conscience and its freedom of choice.”11 10 Decl. On Religious Freedom, No. 3. 11 Const. The Church in the Modern Worldt No. 41. Ferm, Encyclopedia oj Religion. '■'The Church in the Modern World, No. 16. On the other hand, every one knows that conscience can and does make mistakes. As a non-Catholic author says: “Conscience is not infallible... A too self-confident conscience is a moral peril.”12 And this is because being a judgement, the principles, premises and data that the mind has at its disposal could be wrong, or the process of its actual thinking could be misdirected. That is why, in opposition to correct or right conscience, there i$ also a false, lax, scrupulous and pharisaic conscience as well as a certain or a doubtful conscience. The importance of a correct conscience is stated by the Council this way: “Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary cf man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths... Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the mere persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by objective norms of morality.”13 But how is the function of conscience to be applied to the task of transmitting human life? The Council says: “The parents them selves should ultimately make this judgement, in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily. They must always be governed according to a con science dutifully conformed to the divine law itself,. and should be sub 37 missive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically inter prets that law in the light of the Gospel.”1'* “Relying on these princi ples, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating pro creation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.”15 If, according to this teaching, when making a decision about “meth ods of regulating procreation,” conscience must be guided by the law of God as interpreted by the teaching office of the Church, then one of the premises of its judgement has to be the answer to the question: “What is the teaching of the magisterium of the Church on this mat ter?” We have rhe answer in the Encyclical. Once more the teaching office of the Church has spoken. Pope Paul VI repeats what he says is the constant teaching cf the Church. So to form a right and cer tain conscience on this matter, We have the doctrine contained in the Encyclical as a sure guide. However to many children of the Church what makes the formula tion of a right conscience on this matter more difficult are opinions that have been voiced either opposing outright the position taken by the Holy Father or indirectly insinuating that a thinking Catholic has really no obligation to heed his voice. Let us examine briefly some cf these opinions. A) It has been said that Paul VI did net intend his Encyclical to be the last word on life and Ic.ve; that he made it clear he did not intend to make an irrcformablc statement'since the question is still in a stage of development. The Holy Father did sav, two davs after the Encyclical was in troduced to the press: “It (the Encyclical) clarifies a fundamental chapter in the personal, married, family and social life of man, but it is not a complete treatment regarding man in this sphere of marriage, of the family and of mcral probity. This is an immense field to which 11 Ibid. No. 50. ir'Ibid. No. 51. 38 the Magisterium of the Church could and perhaps should return with a fuller, more organic and more synthetic exposition.”10 11 10 L’Osservatore Romano, ibid. 11 Ibid. No. 14. But this does not mean that it is not necessary to obey the Ency clical because it is not yet a “complete treatment” of the matter in question and so it may still be developed and changed. If we adopt the criterion that we may suspend our obedience to authority on the ground that what it prescribes is still under doctrinal development and therefore subject to change, then society itself will collapse. No law or discipline could ever be enforced for everyone would have the right to claim that the doctrinal basis of any given law can still stand fur ther study and so he has no obligation in conscience to obey it until he decides that full growth has been achieved. And what doctrine, of whatever branch of learning could be classified as “fully developed”? Even in the case of defined teachings, without supposing for a moment that their dogmatic contents can change, our understanding cf them is subject and will always bf -subject to growth. When applied to the Church, this criterion stems from the modern tendency to water down its institutional character. The Holy Father denounced this tendency when he said to the CELAM: “The other doctrinal point concerns the so-called institutional Church, placed in confrontation with another alleged, so-called charismatic, Church, as if the first, communitarian and hierarchical, visible and responsible or ganized and disciplined, apostolic and sacramental, were an expression of a Christianity now transcended, while the other, spontaneous and spiritual, would be capable of interpreting Christianity for the adult man of contemporary civilization, and of giving an answer to the real and urgent problems of our time.”17 But the truth that the Church is an institution visible and hierar chical, is a defined doctrine of faith. If by nature it is hierarchical, then its hierarchy is not just an ornamental feature of its life. That hierar chy has to function and its function is to serve the people of God 39 through the sacramental life and the interpretation of the truth and the will of God. The criterion We have mentioned would render this function useless. B) The II Vatican Council said: “This religious submission of will and of mind (religious assent of soul) 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 judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his ma nifest mind and will.”15 1S The Church, No. 25. 19 On Religious Freedom, No. 3. Despite this doctrine, it has been said that if there is no infallible pronouncement, one has the right to disagree with the Holy Father, re spectfully but with finality, because the same Council also gives every one the duty and right “to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgements of conscience.”11' So it is affirmed that even if the conscience of an individual Catholic must respect and consider the teachings of Huma nae Vitae, other elements of judgement may also determine equally its decision, such as the need of fostering love between husband and wife, family and social exigencies and the like. No one should abdicate his personal moral responsibility of judging for himself because before the judgement seat of God, no one will be able to justify himself by say ing that he just followed what the Pope taught. Let us give some thought to this position. There is no question at all that mau must follow his conscience as his proximate rule of conduct. This has always been the constant teaching of the Church. The question here is: Is the official teaching of the Holy Father, even if not ex cathedra but solemn and intended for the whole Church, a decisive factor of conscience? When the Holy Father prohibits something that way, is there a duty on the part of a Catholic to say to himself in conscience: “I will not do this because the Church * 19 40 prohibits it?” Is the official word of the Holy Father only as good as and no better than any other consideration to sway the conscience of a Catholic? Or to sum up these questions in one, when the Council said that everyone has “the right to form for himself right and true judgements of conscience,” did it repudiate its other statement that the judgements of the supreme magisterium, even if not ex cathedra, must be “sincerely adhered to”? We cannot suppose that what the Council says in one place, it discards in another place. Therefore, the only sensible answer is to say that the “right to form judgement of conscience” is delimited by the duty to “adhere sincerely” to the judgements of the supreme magiste rium, even when they are not given ex cathedra. The right is not ab solute; it is conditioned by a duty. We do not have to be told that there is no right enjoyed by man in this word which is not limited by a duty. To what we lnve already quoted above to prove this, we may add the following from the declaration itself on Religious Freedom: “In the fonnation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. The Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that Truth which is Christ himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those prin ciples of the moral order which have their origin in human nature it self”'-" In this position, we are examining, We find a danger that the objective moral order may be totally scrapped. If we equate the value of the teachings of an encyclical on matters of faith and morals with that of one’s own conclusions, then nothing can stop a person from applving this same procedure not only to the regulation of birth but also to any moral question whatsoever. Abortion, divorce, euthanasia, graft and corruption, drug addiction, drunkenness, racial prejudice, lying, pornography, etc., etc., the whole gamut of the Christian moral order, aside from what is explicitly revealed and declared to be so by an ex -° Ibid. No. 14. 41 cathedra pronouncement will become a matter of one’s own personal judgement, since each individual will have the power to pass judgement, for the use of his own conscience, on the acceptability of the moral teachings of the Church. The end of this road is clearly situation ethics, if not the so-called personal ethics. This would all be very well if moral truth were just a matter of private study or of “private interpretation” of the Word of God. But this is not so in the Catholic context of morality. We in the Church believe that Christ meant what He said when He promised Peter: “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you shall declare unlawful upon earth shall be held unlawful in heaven; whatever you shall declare lawful upon earth shall be held lawful in heaven.”21 As two Protestant versions render this text: “...what you forbid on earth shall be forbidden in heaven, and what you allow on earth shall be allowed in heaven.”22 “Whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven; and whatever vou permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”23 21 Mat. 16, 19 — (New Confraternity Translation). 22 The New English Bible, translated by Protestant bodies of England, and printed by Oxford and by Cambridge University Press. 23 The Mojjatt Translation. 21 Mat. 28, 19-20. So if Christ gave this function of prohibiting and permitting to Peter, there is no loss of dignity, as has been averred, in appearing before Christ and saying that one simply obeyed Peter in the conduct of his life. Neither would it be an abdication of his personal moral responsi bility of judging for himself if one were to permit his conscience to be guided in fact by the teaching office of the Holy Father. We should not forget that, because of the words of Christ we have just quoted, accepting the moral guidance of’and obeving that teaching of fice is a moral responsibility of the Catholic. “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them., and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And know that I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.”24 42 Any sensible person should have the humility to accept the fact that he can err. If he is a Catholic, mental honesty demands that he stand ready to revise his conclusions in the presence of the extrinsic evidence of the Holy Father’s decision. This is not a question of pitting his intelligence against that of the Holy Father. It is only a simple matter of accepting some facts; a) that the Holy Father acted with all prudence in his quest for the right decision*’5; b) that he has the right to prohibit given to him by Christ; c) that he has the assistance of the Holy Spirit on matters of important decisions like this one of Hu manae Vitae; and d) that the II Vatican Council, also assisted by the Holy Spirit, according to Catholic belief, declared that the judgements of the supreme teaching of the Church “must be adhered to,” even when not speaking ex cathedra. Therefore We believe that after this Encyclical, a Catholic can form the judgement of his conscience this way: “The Holy Father has the right given by Christ to forbid or to allow a moral action. He has forbidden artificial regulation of birth. And he has done it in the most solemn way short of an infallible pronouncement. And he has not acted lightly or capriciously. And he says that what he forbids is intrinsically wrong. And he has the charism of the assistance of the Holy Spirit on matters of this kind, which I do not enjoy in my private studies. And the II Vatican Council says that I must follow his teachings. So I accept his pastoral and moral guidance.” Before we finish this section of our Letter we want to remind you, our beloved Clergy, that the great majority of our faithful because of their lack of religious training and higher education, are not in a position to form their conscience with an elaborate judgement and after an exhaustive study on matters of faith and morals. In their unfailing Christian faith, they accept the teachings of the Church because they believe that she is the Church of Christ. On this question, as on other questions pertaining to their Christian life, they will accept the teaching of the Holy Father if it is clearly and logically explained to them. On the strength of that teaching, they will form their conscience. -■'Humanae Vitae. Nos. 5 and 6. 43 As Pastors of this flock, We are happy to note that among our Clergy and our leaders of the lay apostolate, not one voice was raised in public against the Encyclical. But in case, after serious study, some body comes to have opinions which differ from the doctrine of the Ency clical, We most earnestly ask him not to substitute his own personal convictions for the teachings of the Holy Father when he teaches the people of God either from the pulpit, from the platform, in the con fessional or in the classroom. After all, they are primarily the flock of Peter, and only secondarily his. It would be a kind of pride and presumption if he practically says to our people: “This is the teaching of the Pope, but do not believe him; you should rather follow me for my doctrine is true and his is false.” We say this because when one thinks that he is a better scholar than the Holy Father, there is a great temptation to adopt that stance. We are not asking you to tell our people that you agree with the Holy Father if in conscience you do not. We are only asking you to teach them what the Holy Father has taught, as his teaching, not ne cessarily as yours. After all it is not really proper to use the pulpit and the confessional as channels of our own private feelings and per sonal interests. Ill We are inclined to believe that the opposition to the Encyclical, even from some Catholics, is not just a strange phenomenon in an other wise close-knit society, “united in mind and voice,”"' belonging to “one Body, one Spirit,” and possessing “on£ faith, one baptism,as St. Paul envisioned the people of God to be. The thinking of some Catholics in regard to the teachings of the Church, a thinking which will necessarily affect their conscience, has been influenced by what the Holy Father referred to last April when he said in a general audience: “After the Council the Church enjoyed, and is still enjoying, a magnificent re-awakening that We are pleased 211 Rom. 15, 6. Eph. 4, 4-5. 44 to recognize and encourage. But the Church has suffered and is still suffering from ideas and facts that are certainly not in accordance with the Holy Spirit, and give no promise of that vital renewal promoted and promised by the Council. An idea with a twofold meaning has made strides even in Catholic circles. This is the idea of change, which for many has taken the place of the idea of “aggiornamento,” presaged by Pope John of venerable memory. In the face of the evidence and contrary to all justice they attribute to that most faithful Shepherd of the Church ideas, which are not ideas of reform, but which are even destructive of the teaching and discipline of the Church.”JS Those “ideas and facts that are not in accordance with the Holy Spirit,” that “idea of change” which is falsely presented as “aggiorna mento,” those “ideas which are destructive of the teaching and disci pline of the Church” are constantly given wide publicity by a certain segment of the press and the impression this publicity creates is that whatever is against any and all traditional teachings of the Church is to be held as the true “aggiornamento” and whatever is in opposition to this kind of “aggiornamento” is simply “integralism fostered by arch-con servatives.” This attitude could be at the root of the opposition to the Humanae Vitae even- from quarters which were expected to be strong in faith and in reverence to the teaching office of the Vicar of Christ cn earth. Knowing the existence of “destructive ideas” in the Church, the Holy Father already predicted this opposition in the En cyclical itself. In a rather forceful manner, the Holy Father summarized these “destructive ideas” when he said to the Bishops in Bogota: “...we are tempted by historicism, relativism, suggestivism, neo-positivism, which introduce into the field of the faith a spirit of subversive criticism and a false persuasion that, to approach and evangelize the men of our time, we must renounce the doctrinal patrimony, accumulated for centuries by the Magisterium of the Church, and that, not only by a greater clarity of expression, but by altering dogmatic content, we can shape a new Christianity, made to the measure of men, and not to the measure of the authentic word of God. Unfortunately also among us some theo28 L’Osservatore Romano, English, May 2, 1968. 45 logians are not always on the right path. We have a great esteem for, and a great need of the function of good and capable theologians; they can be providential scholars and skilled expounders of the faith if they themselves remain intelligent disciples of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, constituted by Christ the custodian and interpreter, by virtue of the Paraclete Spirit of His message of eternal truth. But today some have recourse to ambiguous doctrinal expressions, and others arrogate to themselves the permission to proclaim their own personal opinions, on which they confer that authority, which they, more or less covertly, ques tion in him who by divine right possesses such a protected and awesome charism; and they even consent that each one in the Church may think and believe what he wants, thus fall back into that liberty of examina tion which fragmented the unity of the Church itself, and confusing legitimate freedom of moral conscience with a misunderstood ‘freedom of thought,’ often in error because of insufficient knowledge of genuine religious truths.”29 20 Ibid. Sept. 5, 1968. 30 Ibid. Now speaking of theologians, it is not only the Holy Father who has raised his voice against this “restlessness which troubles certain sec tors of the Catholic world itself.”30 Famous theologians have spoken about it too. Fr. Henri de Lubac, S.J., writing a few months ago, savs: “The crisis sweeping over us today is a general crisis in which we are all caught up. As Teilhard already foresaw, it has a cosmic amplitude. It is he ralded by a deep and universal confusion of minds and causes many disorderly eddies. . . “Already, in cases that are only too frequent, under the ambiguous names of ‘post-conciliar church,’ or ‘new church’ it if another Church than that of fetus Christ that risks being set up—if it is possible to speak of setting up to designate a phenomenon which is above all one of abandonment and disintegration. “It is not these with a yearning for the past, stubborn traditiona lists or opponents on principles who tell us so; it is not ‘integrists’ or 20 * 46 sad spirits, or apprehensive beings, who dread all innovations. It is many of the best workers of the desired renewal.” Then he mentions such pioneers of true renewal as Msgr. Christo pher Butler, Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinal Doepfner, Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Msgr. Dumont and Father Villain who have given warnings about this crisis in the Church. And he continues: “But how can we continue to remain silent today, when we are witnessing in so many cases, such a surrender of Christian intelligence, when we see the levity with which ecclesiastics, forgetful of the hearing that their title gives them, launch so many aber rant ideas which have not even the merit of being due to personal re flection? Are we to be always the dumbfounded or absent-minded wit nesses of this unmaking of faith and of ‘this amazing flattening of Christ ianity” which naively takes itself as being the last word in progress?” Farther down in these quoted portions of his work, the same author says something which perhaps will explain the “conscience” of some Catholics over this Encyclical: “To those affected by it (a kind of collective giddiness), all the vital points seem threatened at the same time: suddenly discovering all the problems and imagining that no one had seen them hitherto, they let themselves be persuaded that the most ruinous solutions are necessary. Consequently, as the result of contempt, which is often based on ignorance and which becomes deliberate ignorance and rejection, Catholic conscience is cut off from everything that nourish ed it. it wilts, and thus finds itself handed over, empty, unprotected, to all outside solicitations. It is no longer able to see itself except through the eyes of an unbelieving world.”31 31 Christ to the World, 1968, Vol. XIII, No. 3, pp. 249-252. We have taken pains to quote Fr. de Lubac at length because we want you to realize, dear children of the Church, that it is not the socalled “integralists” or “arch-conservatives” who are alarmed at the postconciliar apostasy presented under the guise of “renewal,” a “gospel 47 which, while claiming to be still ‘Christian’, aims at replacing the Gospel of Jesus”3"; it is theologians of the calibre of de Lubac and the names he cites—add the name of Jean Danielou—who call on us to beware of innovators who “are busy, for the moment, sketching, as in a ‘freehand drawing,’ all kinds of possible new Christianities,” as von Balthasar says.33 3- Ibid. •'3 Ibid. 31 Ibid. L'Ouervatore Romano, English, July 11, 1968. This author exclaims: “The situation of the Church is deadly serious today!... How, I ask you, is the Christian to behave when he hears a sermon explaining that the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrec tion, the Ascension, Pentecost are only coverings of mythical images, permitted by God in past times, whereas today they must be replaced by quite different ways of expression? I ask the bishops: is the person listening to such a sermon dispensed from divine service? May he, must he, perhaps, leave this divine service?. . . ”31 But it is not enough for us to bewail this crisis of faith in the Church. On the positive side, we should ask ourselves: What true Catholic doctrine should I profess? The answer was given by the Holy Father when, at the closing liturgy of the Year of Faith, he made a profession of Faith which, he said, “repeats in substance the Creed of Nicea, the creed of the immortal Tradition of the Holy Church of God,” “with some developments called for by the spiritual condition of our time.” In the introduction of the Profession of Faith, he says: “We have wished our profession of faith to be to a high degree complete and explicit, in order that it may respond in a fitting way to the need of light felt by so many faithful souls, and by all those in the world, to whatever spiritual family they belong, who are in search of the Truth.”3 , We exhort you, then, dear children of the Church in the Philippines, to study seriously this Creed, to adhere to it faithfully in spite of the lures of “new Christianities and new gospels,” and to recite it in the presence of the Lord in the true spirit of faith. 48 “May the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give you a spirit of wisdom and perception of what is revealed, to bring you to full knowledge of him. May he enlighten the eyes of your mind. .. ”31’ ' Eph. 1, 17-18. For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines: + LINO R. GONZAGA Archbishop of Zamboanga President DOCTRINAL SECTION NATURAL LAW • P. Lumbreras, O.P. Eternal law, objective and primary basis of morality, is the govern ing plan bv which God directs all creation to the common good of the universe. Since it is identical with the divine essence, it is not known to us directly in this life. We discover it in its effects. Thus, we discern, in the first place, that irrational creatures have set inclinations by virtue of which they seek what is convenient to them and flee from whatever harms them, with such unerringness and regularity as if they had a mind.1 1 As from the fact that the arrow hits the bull-eye we aver the existence of the archer that gave it movement and direction, so also from those instincts with which inferior creatures tend to their final end, we come to the knowledge of a first Motor and Ruler (Saint Thomas, Summa Theo]., I, 2, 3). We likewise discern in man, not only the inclinations he shares in common with the inferior beings, but also others that are proper to him. When these inclinations, discerned bv reason, are expressed by reason itself in the form of universal dictates or propositions, viz., life must be preserved and not destroyed, we have what is known as Natural Law. Since this is not the result of an autonomous reason—as the Kantian categorical imperative, would have it—but a reflection and echo of the Eternal Law, it entails true obligation in the internal forum: it has to be obeyed because it is laid down by God. The existence of Natural Law is ascertained by the unanimous con sent of all peoples: it has always been considered good to honour parents. 50 Icve the country, keep the pledged word. It is also established by the intimate experience of every individual: there is no one that is not aware of the dictate of reason that impels him to do good and avoid evil. It is attested to, above all, by Saint Paul when he says (Romans, Chaps. 1 and 2) that the gentiles, although ignorant of the Mosaic law, had engraved in their hearts that other law in the light of which they wculd be judged by God. The practical reason, like the speculative, starts off from certain evident principles, then derives therefrom the immediate conclusions, accessible to all without great effort, and arrives, at length, at the most remote conclusions which are discerned exclusively by the persons devoted to these problems—the moralists, because they exact an uncommon ap plication and a lengthy discursive process. Just as being is what first falls within the speculative apprehension, so what the practical reason first apprehends is the good, since every agent, inasmuch as it tends towards a determinate thing, acts for an end to which it would tend if, in some way or measure, it were not con venient to it. For which reason, just as the double principle of contradic tion and identity—based upon the reason of being and not being—is patent to everyone, so also every one knows the double practical precept— based upon the reason of good and evil—that reduces itself to this; what is good for man, he should seek for or do; what is evil, he should flee from or omit. And since reason discerns as good for man or convenient to him those things to which man is naturally inclined, and as evil and inconve nient the contrary ones, and man’s nature has something in common with the other living beings—thus, he naturally desires his conservation—. something in common with the other animals—so he naturally desires the propagation of the species—and something that is proper to him— so he naturally desires truth, society, etc.—. To the double precept above mentioned one must add, as naturally known by all, these other precepts: life must be preserved and suicide must be avoided,2 for the proper educa 2 Id, ib, II-II, 64, 5. 51 tion of the offspring the latter should be conceived within wedlock,3 truth must be sought for and ignorance and lying must be shunned from, one has to peacefully cohabit with his fellow citizens and avoid what disturbs social peace, etc. 3 Id., ib., Suppl. 41, 1: 3 Contra gentiles, cap. 122. ■* “Omnes inclinationes quarumcumque partium humanae naturae, puta concupiscibilis et irascibilis, secundum quod regulantur ratione, pertinent ad legem naturalem et reducuntur ad unum primum preceptum” (Id., Summa Theol. I-II, 94, 2, 2m). “Inclinatur autem unumquodque naturaliter ad operationem sibi convenientem secundum suam formam: sicut ignis ad calefaciendum. Unde cum anima rationalis sit propria forma hominis, naturalis inclinatio inest cuilibet homini ad hoc quod agat secundum rationem” (Id., ib., a.3). “Sicut ratio in hoinine dominatur et imperat aliis potentiis, ita oportet quod omnes inclinationes naturales ad alias potentias pertinentes ordinentur secundum rationem. Unde hoc est apud omnes communiter rectum, ut secundum rationem dirigantur omnes hominum inclinationes” (Id., ib., a.4,3m). To be sure, these precepts are considered in their universality when we deem them obvious to all men, for it is quite possible that in concrete cases; due to special circumstances, suicide may appear good to an indivi dual thwarted in his wishes and that the rearing of the offspring may be assured out of wedlock and that certain truths displease us and selfish ness may inspire us to enlarge our rights and diminish our civic duties. It is also to be taken for granted that, since man is a rational agent, the inclinations he has in common with inferior beings do not belong to natural law, save in the degree that they are human and are regulated by reason, as in the case of matrimony; thence follows that every man understands that he must always behave himself reasonably and virtu ously.4 Aside from those precepts obvious to all men, there are others that are their proximate conclusions, so proximate that the generality of men know them without effort. They require, true, a discursive process, for they are conclusions, but a discursive process so simple that even the unlettered people understand without difficulty their reason for being. Such are the general precepts of justice, for, if many imagine that they are the arbiters of what is theirs and can dispose of them at their pleasure, 52 everything that belongs to another is his and it is not lawful to wrest it away from him or retain it without his consent.5 * * That is why the moral precepts of the Decalogue, given by God directly to the Hebrew people, are precepts of justice" and not of other virtues. 5 “Manifestissime ratio debiti, quae requiritur ad preceptum, apparet in iustitia, quae est ad alterum, quia in his quae spectant ad seipsum, videtur primo aspectui quod homo sit sui dominus, et quod liceat ei facere quodlibet; sed in his quae sunt ad alterum, manifeste apparet quod homo sit alteri obligatus ad reddendum ei quod debet” (Ib., ib., II-II, 122, 1). 11 “Praecepta decalogi sunt ilia quae immediate populus recipit a Deo . . . Unde oportet pracepta decalogi talia esse quae statim in mentem populi cadere possunt” (Id., ib., I-II, 100, 5, lm.). — “Praecepta decalogi ponunrur in lege sicut prima principia, quae statim debent esse omnibus nota. Et ideo praecepta decalogi debuerunt esse principaliter de actibus iustitiae, in quibus manifeste invenitur ratio debiti” (Id., ib, II-II, 140, 1, 3m). ‘ “Ratio debiti in aliis virtutibus est magis latens quam in iustitia. Et ideo praecepta de actibus aliarum virtutum non sunt ita nota populo sicut praecepta de actibus iustitiae” (Id., ib., I-II, 100, 3, 3m). s “Necesse est quod omnia praecepta moralia pertineant ad legem naturae, sed diversimode. . . Quaedam vero sunt quae subtiliori consideratione rationis a sapientibus iudicantur esse observanda. Et ista sic sunt de lege naturae, ut tamen indigeant disciplina, qua minores a sapientioribus instruantur” (Id., ib., a. 1). 9Ib, ib, II-II, 85, 1. To the natural law also belong those other precepts that are less proximate conclusions of the first and which, requiring more attention and detailed study, are discerned by the learned or versed in moral sciences and, through them, are made known to the people at large.8 Nothing, indeed, is taken away from the validity of a law just because the subjects should come to know of it directly by reading it in a reliable paper instead of in an official organ or bulletin. Neither is any prejudice done to the rigour of the precept, because this should come to the knowledge of man through a discursive process or reasoning rather than through immediate evidence resulting from a mere comparison of its terms. Even the obliga tion to offer sacrifice to God is considered by Saint Thomas a precept of the natural law.9 To the latter, then belong all the conclusions, that with intimate and necessary •connection, flow logically from the men tioned principles. 53 All these precepts, depending upon one to which, in the ultimate analysis, they may be reduced, do not militate against the unity of that same law. One of the most questioned properties of the natural law is that referring to its universality, i. e. whether it is the same for all men in such way that whatever it decrees to be good or evil for some would also be good and evil for the others. To solve this question correctly one has to begin, as does the Ange lical Doctor,10 by distinguishing between speculative reason and practical reason and recalling that the former, dealing with necessary things, are always true both in regard to the principles and the conclusions; practical reason, on the other hand, concerns contingent things, i.e., human acts; hence, their most general principles are always right, but not so with their conclusions. Bv way of example we have it that it is always true that one must act in keeping with reason; from this principle it follows that one ought to return to the owner what he has left in deposit. This precept, however, fails in some cases, for it may happen that what has been deposited be a sword and that the owner should ask it back to wreck treason upon his country or to kill an innocent; it is clear that in such cases, the deposited sword should not be returned. And the conclu sion derived from the most general principles is more liable to fail the more it descends to the concrete, such as if we were to say that a deposit should be returned to its owner with such and such a guarantee, in this or that other form, since, in the degree that conditions are multiplied, there will be many more cases in which the precept may not find applica10 Id., ib.. I-II. 94. 4. Thence the Angelic Doctor argues that the natural law, in regard to the first principles, is the same for all men as to their righteousness; but certain other precepts, that are like conclusions derived from those principles, are valid, yes, in the generality of cases, but not in all, due to definite circumstances. 54 But even in those cases, many or few, when a precept fails the natural law does not. It is more, a conflict of precepts where the superior defeats and annuls the inferior and makes the observance of the latter not only cease being obligatory, but even prohibited and evil.11 That is when one does not prefer to say that what is generally a matter of this definite precept ceases being so in the present circumstances, as St. Thomas points out when speaking of the sword that is had in deposit: its return is exacted by natural law if the sword is regarded as a useful good; from the moment it becomes harmful, because asked for by an irate person, it ceases being a matter of this law. " 11 “Cuiuslibet virtutis actus debitis circumstantiis limitatur: quas si praetereat, iam non erit virtutis actus, sed vitii. Unde ad pietatem pertinet officium et cultum parentibus exhibere secundum debitum modum. Non est autem debitus modus ut plus homo intendat ad colendum patrem quam ad colendum Deum... Si ergo cultus parentum abstrahat nos a cultu Dei, iam non esset pietatis parentum insistere cultui contra Deum” (St. Thomas, Summa Thcol., II-II, 101, 4). — The same Saint invokes much later this beautiful text of the Glosa: “Si quid iusserit curator, numquid tibi faciendum est is contra procon. sulem iubeat? Rursum, si quid ipse proconsul iubeat, et aliud imperator, num quid dubitatur, illo contempto, illi esse serviendum? (Id., ib., q. 104, a.5). '■“Quanto res restituenda apparet graviter noxia ei cui restitutio facienda est vel alteri, non ei debet tunc restitui; quia restitutio ordinatur ad utilitatem eius cui restituitur; omnia enim quae possidentur sub ratione utilis cadunt” (Ib., ib, q. 62, a. 5, Im). ,3Id, ib, I-II 94, 5. Another disputed property of natural law is its immutability. It is clear that, since human nature has been and will always be the same, the natural law corresponding to this nature may not change essentially. But certain events mentioned by Holy Scriptures have compelled theologians to propose themselves the question whether there is room for derogation or dispensation of all or, at least, some of its precepts. Saint Thomas'" denies it absolutely in regard to the first precepts of that law. They reflect the elements and essential ends of the human nature and may not be annulled or supplanted by a superior precept. There will never be a single case when it would be lawful for man to act unreasonably or commit an injustice. In regard to the other precepts, conclusions of the former, there may be some sort of derogation or dispensation, being able to fail (as we have seen) in particular cases, where a superior precept asserts itself or pre vails. Thus, it is possible to talk of derogation of the precept of return ing the sword that is had in deposit. But this derogation is to be under stood in a broad and improper sense, since in the mentioned case what has changed is the matter of the precept not the precept itself. While the conclusions are necessarily linked to the principles, there can be no dero gation of the law properly speaking: it may happen that none is in nocent, but it is not conceivable that the innocent should deserve being de prived of his life. Thence it is that the derogation and even dispensations that seem granted by God in the Old Testament import a true change in the matter of the natural law. Since we are not the owners of life (ours or others’) it is not lawful for us to kill the innocent; but God is master of that life and may take it away even from the innocent whenever and howsoever it pleases Him; whence it follows that, in regard to God, the life of the innocent is not a matter of that law.1'* That is why when the Angelic Doctor takes up the question of the dispensation of the moral precepts of the Decaloque,1' he holds that there can be no dispensation from the prohibition against polytheism, idolatry, blasphemy, perjury, for the matter of these precept is not subject to change; yet, in the matter of vows, although not lawful to break them, still God can return to him who has taken the vows whatever he offered or gave Him—even among men tokens of friendship are returned when that friendship is broken. 14 The permission for polygamy (if we prefer not to speak of mere toler ance) has an easier explanation since it deals about a precept of natural law which does not run counter widi the primary purpose of marriage — the propaga tion of the species—, but with a secondary precept — the harmony and mutual respect the couple owe each other—, hence, when propagation was more neces sary, God dispensed with law, sacrificing the particular for the common good (Id., ib., q. 97, a.4.3m: II-II, 64, 3, 3m; Suppl. 65, 1 and 2). 15 Id., ib., I-II. 100, 8. 56 In the second Tablet God could order Oseas to cohabit with a prosti tute, not because he would allow him to fornicate (with a free woman), but because He was giving her to him as his legitimate wife; he could allow the Jews to cart away the booty of the Egyptians, not because he would legitimise robbery for them, but because such was owed them as just compensation for the unrewarded services or because God, absolute and supreme owner of things, can take them away from some to give them to others. What may not be done is to permit sodomy, falsehoods, lies, etc., whose matter is not susceptible of change. One last problem: Can there be invincible ignorance of the precepts of natural law? Antecedent ignorance, that is to say, in regard to those who either never knew those precepts or came to know them too late, is discussed in another article. It suffices now to speak of subsequent ignorance of those who having known those precepts, fall later into such grievous error as to persuade themselves that what they formerly knew to be prohibited is noXv lawful. Saint Thomas holds"5 that the principles of natural law may never be erased from the human mind, since their righteousness stands out clearly upon sheer consideration of their terms: no one will deny that he ought to act according to reason, even if, in absurd cases, all would think that reason was on their side. In regard, however, to the conclu sions, specially the remote ones, of those principles, the same causes that may make them not known by all, at least for some time, may cause the acquired knowledge to be forgotten or misrepresented: such is, for instance, the influence of passions and bad habits, envenomed education, adverse environment. Pius XII opportunely called the attention towards a complaint heard from not a few Catholics who had received excellent moral and religious training and yet, pretend to excuse themselves from sin with this ar gumentation: No one is bound to do the impossible; therefore, God has not imposed upon us, with his natural law, precepts the compliance with which surpasses our strength. It would suffice, the Pope says to invert Id., ib., 94, a.6. 57 the terms of the argument to show its weakness: God does not command the impossible; but he commands this; therefore, it is not impossible. And he cites, in confirmation thereof, text from the Tridentine Council, based upon the eloquent words of St. Augustine: God does not com mand us to do the impossible, but when he commands us something, He wants us to do what we can and ask for that which we cannot do and He makes, through His help, possible for us to do what exceeds our suf ficiency.1' 17 Pius Xll, Address to the Italian Midwives, 29 October, 1951; AAS 45 (1951), p. 846 and ff. MEDICINE AND MORALS The Ecclesiastical Magisterium in the Evolution of Medico-Moral Problems A Study-course on “Medicine and Morals” was held in the Auditorium of the Hospital of St. Camillus from October 14th to 18th. We give below a resume of some of the papers read. Fr. Marcello Zalba, S.J., Professor of Moral Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, took as his subject: “The Ecclesiastical Magisterium in the Evolution of Medico-Moral Problems”. He pre faced his remarks by observing that the Church had never presumed to interfere with scientific research, but simply to guide it towards correct applications. He then proceeded to indicate the criterion with regard to medical intervention upon the human person, as explicitly and uninter ruptedly laid down by the Magisterium. In the first part, he dealt with operations with regard to the body, and specifically with the following: generation (referring to the impediment of consanguinity, to the mar riage of congenital defectives and the prematrimonial medical certificate); birth, stressing the constant and determined opposition to abortion, bodily integrity, which was resolutely upheld until the principles of the double effect and of totality, as also advance techniques, had brought to maturity the present teaching with regard to lawful and even obligatory operations. He proceeded to speak of direct sterilization, always strongly condemned by the Church, and about the use of the sex-faculty, referring to the defence of continence in general, the lawfulness of periodic abstinence, opposition to various forms of castration and to what was strangely regarded as artificial insemination. He then spoke at some length of the respect due to the corpse, emphasizing the lawfulness of utilizing it for study purposes, but always paying attention to the principles of 59 justice. He adduced documentary evidence to prove that, from earliest times, the Church had allowed biopsies to be made for the same objective. For each aspect of his subject, the speaker outlined the development of the present teaching, settled or solved in such masterly fashion by Pius XII and followed with an easy mind by moralists and medical men. In the second part, Fr. Zalba examined the criteria for lawful opera tions on the human person without injury to either dignity or freedom. He paid special attenion to the use of anaesthetics and analgesics, to painless childbirth, to experiments upon living persons, to interference with the psyche, to euthanasia and resuscitation. Regarding anaesthetics, he recalled that they were forbidden if there was an intention of using them to shorten life deliberately for the purpose of avoiding pain, or if they could cause damage, such as reduction of will-power or the (stimula tion) of dangerous pleasure. Speaking on painless childbirth, he em phasized that in this connection there was no fault whatever from the moral point of view, because it was lawful to avail of scientific means and to apply them in a reasonable way for the relief of pain. This is not opposed to Holy Scripture which affirms only the travail inseparable from maternity and does not forbid the use of lawful means to make the birth easier and less painful. Among operations dealing with the psyche he mentioned psych□surgery which, though not given full treatment in church documents, is nonetheless lawful like other operations and on the basis of the principle of totality. With regard to hypnosis, analysis with the aid of drugs, and psychoanalysis, he spoke of the possibility of abuse and therefore the validity of papal warnings about it. He repeated that euthanasia was absolutely unlawful; at most one could be allowed to ease the suffering of the dying, even to the point of unconsciousness. As may be easily understood, the conference, besides clearly ex pressing the principal aspects of medical morality, also clearly reaffirmed the Catholic criterion for promoting medical science and ethics, always however within the bounds of law and justice insofar as they concern the person and the sacred rights of the sick. And if the Church in the 60 past and even to-day takes up a position of reserve with regard to some particular operations, she does so to restrain the danger of haste, to avoid damage to the social order and to promote safer techniques. The Principle of double effect and its Application in the Medical Field Fr. Zalba was followed by Fr. D. Capone, C.SS.R., a mem ber of the Alphonsianum Academy, on The Principle of the double effect and its application in the medical field. The wide range of cases offered not just to doctors but to every man by the application of this principle inspired the speaker to make a direct investigation of the principle in question. To-day more than ever before, this was required by the contrast between the simple course of nature and the growing demands of a culture which, in supplying new possibilities, tends also to impose both in theory and in practice, new obligations, which are often required by political 'needs, by particular activities, by public epinions, etc. Herein lies the dilemma of the medical man, or more often of the moralist: should he let nature run its course without hindrance or should he intervene to mutilate it on the plea of cultural well-being? This disturbing question is almost like the one about squaring a circle. The lecturer endeavoured to solve it by clarifying and defending the concept of person, a concrete and definite reality which should be subjected to examination both in its original circums tances and in its particular situation according to the demands of prudence. This virtue which directs right action does not permit one to follow in all circumstances the laws of science but detects and gives authority to an inner morality, often necessary in a concrete case. He next explained the principle in question by a reference to its essential components (its formulation dates from 1600 but its intuition is part of man’s birthright). Aided by profound philosophical and ascetical considerations, the speaker went on to deal with the co-existence of good and evil in the dimension of earthly reality, and showed the existential necessity of often having to chose a good, no matter how limited it may be, side by side with a lesser evil, since it is impossible 61 to have an unmixed good. At this point, Fr. Capone’s lecture turned into a real meditation upon the co-existence of good and evil, based upon the Gospel parable of the cockle; he thus logically repudiated a rigoristic morality in favour of a morality of co-existence, which is basically the doctrine of Divine Providence and Christian realism. The non-Christian doctor who follows only so-called “medical morality”, and who ignores the higher reality of man, will run the risk of allowing evil to prevail over good, the part over the whole. Seeing only the earthly life of a patient, ignoring its divine dimensions and horizons, he will deliberately take his stand upon a hedonist and tem poral morality; he will choose, even though he may not actually intend, the greater evil instead of the greater good; he will take care of one aspect of life but not of the whole life. The Catholic doctor, on the other hand, while quite resigned to perform an operation with a double effect, one good, the other evil, will strongly refuse to operate except when faced with a choice between a greater and lesser evil, he operates to remove the greater evil and thereby promote the over-all good of the patient. This is but the fruit of Christian prudence, of the mind enlightened by science and by faith. By this means the doctor will refrain from useless attempts to eliminate every vestige of sacrifice from human life, as the hedonist-technological culture pretends to do. He will also identify cases of heroic endurance, to which the patient is not indeed normally bound; when faced with such cases the doctor may with a safe conscience apply the principle of the two-fold effect. Situation Ethics and its Modern Postulates Fr. Louis Bertrand Gillon, O.P., Dean of the Faculty of Theo logy at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas of Aquin, took as his subject: “Situation ethics and its modern postulates”. Having clarified the meaning and the range of the expression “situa tion morality” according to the latest existentialist philosophy of Heid egger, the speaker recalled the view expressed bv Pius XII in a dis course delivered to the World Federation of Young Catholic Women, 62 The Pontiff affirmed that in decisions of conscience a man found himself face to face with God; he makes his decision without the intervention of any law or of any authority, not even that of the Church. Fr. Gillon next gave his attention to the atheist idea of situation morality (Sartre), and also to that which claimed a Christian inspira tion, which originated in the thought of S. Kierkegaard and was more recently developed in the work Honest to God by A. T. Robinson, an Anglican bishop. The speaker further referred to some Catholic writers who, although making some use of situation morality in Catholic theology still do not deny the moral law or objective morality. Some particularly difficult cases were dealt with by Pius XII in the above-mentioned discourse; he gave a few examples and pronounced a rather negative verdict when it w^s a question of prohibiting precepts of the divine law which necessarilyrequired obedience. After a close scrutiny of the reality of the human conscience of its value in judgments and in decisions, Fr. Gillon concluded his lecture by drawing a contrast between badly-understood situation ethics and a sane Christian personalism, capable of accepting responsibility and ma king decisions. This account by Fr. Gillon, particularly meaningful for its many insight in the practical sphere and not simply in the medical field, wail followed with close attention by all present. The Alleged Application of Situation Ethics in Medical Practice. The next speaker was Mons. G. Geraud, Professor of Pastoral Medicine at the Pontifical Lateran University. He took as his subject “The alleged applications of situation ethics in medical practice”. He first fully illustrated the whole concept of situation morality. He then showed how this fitted in very well with the psychology of the doctor because it emphasized the incommunicable character of the object cf medical knowledge, namely, that there are no two patients who are 63 exactly alike. But “situation ethics”, continued the speaker, also wants to provide a moral attitude which, at the very moment when a determined case arises, will make provision for it and take decisions about it over and above the law. It is indeed very true that the doctor often finds himself dealing with cases which surpass the limits of the strict applica tion of the law; his conscience therefore cannot act unless it is en lightened. Recalling a meeting with Pius XII, Mons. Geraud quoted the penetrating thought of the Pontiff when speaking of situation ethics. It may thus be summarised: “Over and above the law, the directives which ensure rectitude of conscience for the doctor are: 1) In all circumstances, all the good must necessarily be foreseen before hand; 2) a concrete case must never be separated from its ecclesial context; 3) the strides of the intellect must keep in step with the mystery.” Mons. Geraud, using some concrete examples, illustrated the value of these directives. After this account, it was again made very clear that the thought of Pius XII was the fundamental and almost unique code summarizing the various doctrines which had been under discussion. A request was made for some practical remembrance of his lively interest in medical problems. This could take the form of some suitable commemoration of his great work to coincide with the tenth anniversary of his death. The proposal received unanimous approval and Mons. Angelini promised that such a commemoration would be held in due course on October 18th at the conclusion of the Study Course. Respect For Human Life and Moral Principles. On October 17th three subjects came up for discussion: Respect for one's own life and others’ and moral principles” Fr. Visser, C.SS.R., Dean of the Theological Faculty of the Pontifical Urban University. The principle of totality and its applications in medical practice” by P. A. Gunthor, Professor of Moral Theology at St. Anselmo; and “Resuscita tion and its moral problems” by P. C. Nadalet, Professor of Moral Theology in the theological faculty of the Marianum. 64 Fr. Visser began by recalling theological principles: human life, a most precious gift, makes man unto the likeness of God (Gen. 1: God breathed the breath of life into man formed from the slime of the earth); every new human life requires not alone the cooperation of the parents but a creative act of God; the human soul is immortal although the integral life of man requires the body with which it came into being; and therefore at the end of time, the resurrection of the dead. He then went on to show respect for life demands absolute prohi bition of any direct attempt upon the human life. But since a doubt remains as to when truly human life begins, the practical rule must be followed: probable life is certain life. It is therefore necessary to adopt a course of action which will avoid the danger of destroying a human life. In case of a clash between certain life (e.g. a mother) and doubt ful life, the former prevails, on condition however that no direct at tempt is made upon either the one or the other. In the second part, the lecturer spoke of the obligation of preserv ing human life insofar as it is in our power to do so; power in this con text means both material power and moral power, i.e. without dispro portionate sacrifice. Whilst it is never lawful to make any attempt upon human life, no matter how weak or minimal it may be, it is not necessary to adopt extraordinary means; it is enough to use ordinary means, proportionate to the value and condition of the human life in question. The decision is difficult in certain concrete cases; hence the praiseworthy tendency to preserve every life to the greatest extent pos sible. Care however must be taken to see that this supremely humane principle does not degenerate into supreme cruelty, as would happen for example by the use of all possible means to prevent a man from dying in peace. At the end of this lecture there were numerous lively objections: all were dealt with in a clear and satisfactory fashion by the lecturer. The Principle of Totality and its Application in Medicine The second speaker, Dr. Gunthor, began by explaining how the principle of totality could be understood in different ways. Vatican 65 Council II in the Pastoral Constitution, for example, stressed the unity and totality of man in body and soul. This had wide repercussions in medical practice which could no longer concentrate only on the dis eased organ but must take into account the whole person. The principle of totality, in the specific sense of the word, states that the part of the totality of a human being exists for the whole, consequently it is subor dinated to the whole; and that the whole holds a predominant power over rhe part and may dispose of it in its own interest (Pius XII). Although this principle is evident, its application is not always easy. The principle itself has undergone undeniable development. Whilst Pius XI spoke rather of the body in which the parts arc disposed, Pius XII always paid more consideration to the whole person, to whom the parts have a relationship of finality. In this perspective, justification may be found, for example for psychosurgery; for proper aesthetic me dical care, etc. From this point of view, the solution is also found for the problem of transplanting an organ from one living human body to another. A transplant is not simply in favour of the recipient of the organ but also favours the donor who in this way—under certain conditions—realizes the ontological social structure of the human per son. In the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Pope does not allow certain applications of the principle of totality to matrimonial problems; for example, the single act cannot be considered as a part of the totality of the matrimonial life, for if it were, the single act could no longer be a total dedication. Furthermore, the principle of totality, even from another point of view, cannot be applied to marriage in the sense that a man could interfere with his nature for the benefit of his personal good or that of his wife. Anyone who reasons in this way fails to see that the concept of nature is analogous. It may in fact refer to certain physical data, more or less contingent, which may and in some cases ought to be dealt with within the limits of the principle of totality. But nature may also mean a series of attitudes and human acts, richly and deeply meaningful and of sublime significance. And in this sense nature cannot be trifled with; it can only be fulfilled or destroyed. 66 Resuscitation and its Moral Problems Fr. Nadalet, the third of the evening’s speakers, first spoke of the idea of resuscitation which included all techniques and methods used to re-establish and maintain the vital functions of an organism which are either greatly weakened or gravely insufficient. He next described the interval that exists between clinical death and biological death. Medicine, he said, has succeeded in establishing the fact that death no longer appears as a single event: we die by degrees. However, the new therapeutic methods of resuscitation have shown the radical insufficiency of the hitherto classic signs of death, such as the failure of respiration and of blood circulation. With the complex technical apparatus of resuscitation, people who are apparently dead can be kept alive. But, continued the speaker, this raises an infinite number of prob lems: when is a person reaUy dead? How can we deal with increasing requirements when the centres of resuscitation are increasingly less? What criteria should the doctor follow in resuscitation? And what if the person should remain permanently incapacitated after resuscitation? Morality answers all these questions by indicating the task of me dical practice. Medicine helps people to remain alive; it fights against disease and death; it can delay death but cannot eliminate it. In the final analysis, medicine helps men to draw maximum value from their lives so that they can make a better preparation for death. Moral Aspects of Transplants of Human Organs The final day of the course began with a lecture by Fr. Giovanni Perico, S.J., on “Moral aspects of the transplants of human organs.” After a rather confused initial period, the scientific debate on hu man transplants has entered a new phase of greater precision; this offers increased possibilities for rewarding research in the context of moral iaws. 67 In the first place, morality does not fear medical progress; it realizes that man’s very intellectual structure urges him to advance, for it is a structure intended for research. If it sometimes puts on the brake, it is only to dissuade the research-worker from putting progress on too high a pedestal, like an idol to which everything must be sacrificed. As regards transplants from corpses, there are no big moral prob lems. Whilst the subject was still alive, they were “personal goods”; now they belong to him only in an indirect way. Therefore no right and no precept of indisposability suffers injury if, to aid a brother in distress, some part is removed from the lifeless body, always, of course with due consent, or at least presumed, from the next of kin. On the other hand, as regards removal from a living person, we must reconcile and integrate two principles. One is the principle of in disposability of whatever may be considered part of the substantial in tegrity of the subject; the other is the principle of solidarity, in virtue of which we may, whenever necessary, dispose of our organs for the benefit of a third party. This may be regarded as a payment of our “social debt” to make up for what we have received from the social group. Coming down to the concrete case of kidney transplant from a living donor, undoubtedly the greater technical perfection of the opera tion, the methodology used in the choice of eventual donors, the use of immuno-depressive techniques, have all greatly diminished the risk both to donor and to recipient. On this account, whenever it may be necessary to save a patient suffering from grave uremia, and there are no other alternatives, a kidney transplant from a living donor is certainly lawful. For one thing, more perhaps than any other social measure, this gesture enriches the community with new sources of love and soli darity which supply an antidote to the devastating social effects of egoism. It is a gesture which responds to the Gospel invitation to love one another to the point of self-sacrifice. Heart transplants presuppose that the corresponding problem of the donor’s death has already been solved. In practice, both theology and morals have adopted as their own the definition of death which science is gradually determining on the grounds of very recent discoveries. 68 Going further, they have asked scientists to try for even greater preci sion in their ideas. Within the last fifty years we have learned a lot more about death, but we need not wait longer before taking action. We do not, for example, blame the doctors of fifty years ago for using unsuitable remedies—they were not compelled to wait for us. Conse quently, a subject who is declared clinically dead, and who is morally irrevocably dead may be regarded as a possible donor. This is so even if it requires the suspension of resuscitation actually in progress but definitely known to be absolutely useless when real life has ended. As regards the recipient, if he has been properly informed of the risk he will run in submitting to the operation, of the possibilities of sur vival with his diseased heart, of the possibilities arising from the trans plant, and if, having made a complete survey of his present situation, he decides to submit to the risk of operative surgery, then his deci sion is lawful. The impossibility of continuing in his present condition is a sufficient reason for this decision. Correspondingly, the surgeon who has been invited to operate may intervene for the same reasons if he entertains at least some slender hope of success. All the most fascinating stages of science began in this fashion. At first, results were limited and sometimes unfortunate; then by degrees results were better and more decisive. Fr. Perico’s lecture was followed by a lively discussion in which several well-known doctors and some hospital chaplains took part. “Humanae Vitae” and Medical Morality The last lecture of the course was given by Fr. Lio Ermenegildo, O.F.M., who dealt with the recent Encyclical “Humanae Vitae" in respect of medical morality. In a documented account, he pro duced evidence in support of the following points: The Encyclical was intended to reply to doubts which had arisen in the field of medical morality, especially after the discovery and diffusion of the progeste rone pills. But the Encyclical did not go into the medico-scientific as pect of the problem. Instead it took pains to enunciate once again, and to clarify in accord with recent medical discoveries, the moral prin69 ciplcs which should direct the proper regulation of births. In this con nection, reference was made to doctors and medical personnel (n. 27) who are called upon to promote “conviction and respect” for the papal pronouncement. To secure this objective, those mentioned should devote some thought to the permanent and immutable validity of the teaching on the intrinsic malice of contraception. On this particular point, it is of considerable help to recall tbe very ancient sources, always the same in sense and sentiment, upon which the papal teaching is based. This is very appropriate when it is remembered what attempts were made, especially during the last century, to change the teaching of the Magisterium. This latter in turn, always recognized its obligation to propound again the same teaching and to declare clearly, as the Ency clical in fact does, that the Church can “never declare lawful what is not so on account of its intimate and immutable antagonism to the true good of man”. (n. 18) In the second part, Fr. Lio offered a synthesis of the practical and theoretical conclusions which medical morality ought to take into ac count. He made particular reference to nn. 14, 15 and 16 of the Encyclical which enunciate the principles and various methods which may be considered lawful or unlawful in the regulation of births. The reasons upon which the papal pronouncement is based are deduced from the na ture of conjugal love and of responsible parenthood according to the divine order established by God. According to tlrs divine order made manifest by right reason supported bv the Magisterium cf the Church, respect must be shown for the limitations imposed upon man with re gard to human life, even so far as they have direct reference to tb> faculties and generative functions (cf n. J7). Respect must also be shown for the intrinsic ordering of conjugal love for procreation, as the Ecumenical Council has stated. This also holds good for the indivi dual acts, at least in the sense that the couple may not artificially prevent the natural possibility of procreation (cfr. n. 11). This moral order is based upon the ontological order, or as the Encyclical savs, “on the laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman.” (n. 12) Thus medical morality should promote this divine order so as to join forces in fostering the divine vocation of the married couple to 70 goodness and sanctity; this is the primary value of earthly life in an eternal context. The same Encyclical invites modern science to advance in such a way as to offer help in solving the difficulties of couples by using suitable means which conform to the order willed by God. In this way, medical science, although aggrieved by the papal pronounce ment, is encouraged to new research and greater victories. It thus makes its own contribution to the salvation of souls; this is the end towards which the Magisterium of the Church ever looks, and never more so rhan in the historic Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, of Paul VI. Recalling Pope Pius XII When the lecture was over, H. E. Mons. Fiorenzo Angelini spoke on Pius XII to commemorate, as had been requested, the tenth anniversary of his death. Mgr. Angelini movingly recalled the work of the immortal Pontiff in favour of doctors and medical-surgical science. In particular, he spoke of his masterly grasp of the new principles and directives of medical morality, and of the results obtained in Christian formation in such a delicate and complex sector in every part of the world. This commemorative function, inspired by repeated references to the teaching of Pius XII and to its particular application in va rious fields of medical science, was welcomed with loud, prolonged and rapturous applause. It was clear that the pastoral talents of the de ceased Pontiff were still a living memory in the minds of those doctors who had had him as their teacher. PASTORAL SECTION HOMILETICS • David Tither, C.SS.R. Septua<;es!ma Sunday (Feb. 2) “With most of them God was not well pleased”. (Epistle.) St. Paul tells us in today’s Epistle that the just people of God, the Israe lites, failed to please God because they did not remember the lesson behind God’s gifts. It would be tragic if the same were true of us, if we used God’s benefits, the Mass and the Sacraments, without remembering the kernel of Christianity. Suppose a student were told at the beginning of the school year that ques tions would be asked in the exams, how lucky he would consider himself, how sure he would be to study the answers thoroughly. Our position, regarding the essence of Christianity, is exactly that of such a fortunate student. Our life is a testing, a time of trial. And at the end of it, an exam has to be taken. But, in His Infinite Mercy, God has told us that questions will be asked. “When you saw the hungry, did you give Me food? When I was naked, sick, in prison, did you serve Me? The works of mercy will be the subject matter of our exam. They wj|l enable God to see if we truly loved Him by serving Him in our neighbor. “As often as you did it to one of these little ones, you did it to Me.” (Mt. 25). “By this shall all men know that you are My disciple, if you have love one for another.” It must be said quite bluntly: either a Christian concerns himself in the plight of the poor, and with equal energy gives himself to the needs of each individual neighbor, or he is no follower of Christ. This is the lesson of the Gospel, and this will be the clear lesson of the upcoming end (for our lifetime) final form of Mass. It will be impossible, with the new form of Mass, to separate worship of God from service (for God’s sake) of our fellow 72 The new Mass will give the offertory procession the prestige and the meaning it might have. It will be a feature of every Mass. It will make crys tal dear that worship of God is impossible without concern for our brothers, especially the needy. The greatest gift ever offered to God was Christ’s sacrifice. It was the perfect gift to God, offered by the only Priest fully acceptable to Him. It was at the same time the greatest expression ever of love for mankind. “Greater love than this no man has that a man lay down his life for his friends.” From earliest time, Christians imitated this example in the offertory pro cession. They were well aware that the only perfect offering was Christ’s. But they also knew that this gave them no permission to be passive. So, they brought gifts — not just bread and wine, but offerings for Church upkeep, and for the needs of the poor. As time went on and livelihoods became di versified, money took the place of these gifts. Admittedly, it’s hard to see anything sacred in money. But, we must see the collection in this light — an offering to God and an expression of love towards our neighbor. The collection is a religious act and should be seen as such. The whole meaning of this will be revealed in an offertory procession that will include our contribution, both money >nd gifts for the poor, along with the bread and wine to be consecrated. The gifts-food and drink representing our life and offering for the poor and church upkeep, will recall two important truths often forgotten today. First, that adoration of God is the pri mary purpose of creation. If we neglect this, the first and greatest command ment, anything we do for others is not Christian charity, it is not loving as Christ loved. If we ignore our Father, we’ll never realize that we are brothers. The second truth brought home to us by a procession in which our offering for the poor is a part put this way by St. John: “This com mandment we have from God, that he who loves God love also his brother.” The offertory procession will make visible the double aspect of charity— love of God and love of neighbor. Only love of God prepares us from true love of our neighbor. Each is not existent without the other. Taking an active part here, seeing our contribution for what it is — a cheerful act of worship—will make it impossible to think of Mass as something strictly be tween ourselves and God; it will result in a real concern for our less fortunate brothers. In Communist East Germany, Catholic Schools and newspapers are burned! No teaching of religion is possible, Mass goers are discriminated against. It is only from the Mass that Christians can realize that is essential and funda mental. But, the people are tenaciously holding their faith. The offertory procession there has come to be of capital importance. Each Mass goer places 73 his own host in the ciborium and his offering (food, clothing or money) in their respective baskets before Mass begins. All stand to show their involve ment as their host and their offerings are carried to the Altar. Says the brave Bishop Spuelbech: “I consider the offertory procession a decisive act in the Mass....” We can look forward to it shortly, and please God, we also will learn from it that as is our Mass, so is our life, that unless we learn concern for others from the Mass, our offering is not just incompatible, it is meaningless. Sexagesima (Feb. 9) Distribution of roles at Mass means involvement in Apostolate. Many experts are trying to find the most important or significant statement of the Recent Council. One sentence is so sweeping and so striking that it deserves our attention. Indeed, it is so strong that it demands our attention. It concerns the updating of the Mass, soon to be introduced in its final form. The Council said that “this is the source from which all power for renewal flows.” Let’s consider an aspect of the New Mass—the dividing up of roles, the assigning to each participant of his proper function. Over the years we’ve grown used to a quite abnormal situation, where the priest at the Altar fulfilled functions that belonged rather to a layman, like reading the Scripture lessons; or to the whole congregation, where he recited parts that ought to be sung by everyone, for instance, the Introit, Gradual, and Alleluia, the Offertory verse, the Communion antiphon. Some times, lie even did things proper to a server, like pouring the water over his own fingers at the Lavabo. Maybe, as a result of seeing the priest as a sort of jack-of-all-trades, we unconsciously got the impression that all the Church’s work, including the Apostolate, was the function of the priest alone. Inactive at Mass, we adopted an inactive attitude on all Church fronts. “Leave it to the priest” became our unspoken Motto. To remove this disastrous impression, recent reforms have reassigned some roles where they belong. So we now pray some responses, and sing some hymns. We’ve grown more or less used to hearing parts of the Mass read or sung by others, while the presiding priest listens, along with the congregation. Perhaps we’ve come to realize that where the priest does do everything at Mass, this is by way of an altogether special exception, and is anything but ideal. Widi the new Mass, or Normative Mass, all that will go forever. In stead of the priest reading the Introit after preparatory prayers, (something like leaving a room in order to enter again and welcome yourself) Mass will begin with all of us singing an entrance hymn. Likewise, the readings from 74 the Old and New Testaments will be assigned to a layman, with Celebrant and people listening. Instead of a Gradual read by an individual, some verses from the book of Psalms (the very prayer book used by Our Lord and His Mother) will be sung by all of us. Community singing also for the Alleluia before the Gospel, and • accompanying the Offertory Procession. And at Com munion time, our union with Our Lord and one another in Our Lord will be emphasized by community singing during communion and not by the reading of a verse after Communion is over. If we are at birthday party, no one would think of reciting “Happy Birthday” to you. It’s meant to be sung, so we sing it. The results of this sharing of roles will be many. We’ll become aware of the fact that we are a family, the Family of God—that Mass is a family celebration in which each has a part. Those assisting in the sanctuary (and their role will include preparing the chalice, mixing the wine and water, and purifying the vessels after Communion) will free the priest from minor duties which should not really be his. The importance of what he does do officially — the praying of the Community Prayers in the name of all, and the Canon, will be highlighted. There’s a lot more to this than just relieving the mono tony, or recapturing attention, by a change of voice. The honor of serving God in this special way quickly and surely brings servers of Christ nearer to God: If anyone serves Me, My Father will honor him. (John 12.24). Deeper involvement in works of zeal will naturally follow. How many priests admit that their thoughts were first attracted to the priesthood when they. served Mass. We can look forward to this happening to all of us, not just readers and serves, once the public and social nature of Mass is so clearly emphasized that can’t be missed. And that day is just round the corner! There’ll be a challenge, yes, we’ll have to shake off the last vestiges of any past attitude we might have had that Mass is the priest’s business. Then we’ll realize something of vital importance, something that’s being stressed since the Council as may be never before in the Church’s history,— the role of the layman. Our share, as baptized and confirmed Christians, in the Priesthood of Christ, is not just something we exercise at Mass—our par ticipation in Christ’s sacrifice is only one expression of it. We are priests all the time—we share in the whole of His mediation, in all aspects of His concern for the spiritual and temporal welfare of others. We carry Him from Mass to places where a priest (in Mass vestments or without) could never go, where an ordained priest could never have the impact we can have. We carry Him to our daily occupations, we radiate Him to those with whom we work, we carry Him to our places of recreation, christ 75 ianizing them, sanctifying them. It would be unthinkable that we regard tltis as the exclusive work of the priest, especially when we come to see that each of us has our own proper function at Mass. If we learn this (and we surely will) then the fire that Christ came on earth to kindle will blaze and spread, and our service of God in Mass will overflow into selfless service of Christ in our fellow-men. Quinquagesima (Feb. 16) “The greatest of these is love.” (Epistle) I have mentioned several times the adoptation of the Mass that we can expect before the end of 1969. Today let’s consider the new formulas of main prayer of the Mass. These are with us here, it’s only a matter of awaiting the translation. As you know, there are now 3 versions of this prayer, besides the old one which has been unchanged for 1500 years. The first change made in all that time was made by Pope John XXIII when he inserted the name of St. Joseph in the list of Saints. In fact we called it the Cdnon or unchangeable part. A better name would be Anaphora, or Table prayer. As we know, die Mass is a sacrificial meal—not to satisfy our appetite, but a banquet, a family celebration. We are quite familiar with such ban quets—to honor newlyweds or jubilarians, or a departing friend. The im portant thing is not the eating that may take up only a short time at a ban quet. What really matters, what makes a banquet, is the expression of love for the one honoured, the speeches made, the songs sung, the drinking of toast to one another’s health. These determine the very character of a banYes, the words spoken or the type of songs sung tells what the banquet is for. The menu could very well be the samd, but we’ll soon discover just by listening what the occasion celebrated is. If, for instance, a speech begins: “Honoured guest, on the eve of your departure, we wish you well” — we know it is a farewell banquet. And, sc on, whether the banquet marks an anniversary, a jubilee, a wedding, the 9th day after a death. At the heart of Mass, we do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. The occasion was a ritual banquet of remembrance — recalling God’s wonderful dealings with His people. Jesus took bread, said over it a table prayer of thanks and praise to His Father, divided and distributed the bread, said: “Take this and eat it, this is my Body which shall be delivered for you,” and added “Do this for a remembrance of Me.” He did the same with the wine. 76 The anaphora, or table prayer at Mass, does all these things. It begins at the preface with a summons to thanksgiving. “Lift up your hearts, Let us thank the Lord our God. When you hear the new prefaces, you will be thrilled, because they include many aspects of God’s goodness, many motives for thanksgiving. This is the precise reason for new formulas — no single one could possibly give all the aspects of Redemption. Then the narration of what Jesus did at the Last Supper, which includes the Consecration. This is, of course, infinitely more than a mete narration. This is a sacrament, and effects what it re-enacts. Then, with Christ’s sacrifice re-pr.esented, we recall all God did and is doing, and will do for us in and through Christ. The breaking of the Host and actual eating happens after th? Tableprayer. The conclusion of the Anaphora is the little elevation which we all enthusiastically answer Amen. At a banquet, clapping, applause and acclamations are a regular feature. Until now, it was only by joining in the Sanctus and the concluding Amen that we expressed our share in die table prayer said in the name of us all. In the new Anaphoras, there will be more joining in. For instance, after the Consecration, priest and people will together sing this. “Your death, O Lord, we commemorate. Amen. Your glory as our Risen Lord now we celebrate. Amen. Your return as Lord th glory together we await. Amen.” The lively and beautiful melody will be a real expression of joy, the joy of Easter. The Lord is here, we’ve found Him again. And after joining our offering with His, and finally achieving Communion with Him, will go like Magdalene, to announce Him to others, to serve Him unselfishly in others. This particularly is emphasized by the new formulas for the Table prayer. For instance, this petition: Make us who are nourished by the Body of Your Son and filled with the Holy Spirit become one body and one spirit—Christ. This petition is to be emphasized by an acclamation from us and these reminders that we receive the body of Christ to become the Body of Christ are most timely. All we are one body, all who partake of one bread. Church and civil rulers have both declared that this year should be a year of social awareness. If we don’t get it from the Mass, we’ll never get it. And it’s Christianity. This is My Commandment; by this shall all men know that you are My disciples. ... If anyone has this world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (Jn. 3:17) From the Mass, more so now than ever since it’s spelled out so clearly in the very heart of the Mass, at a part of the table prayer where we will applaud, we will learn, like Christ, “to have compas sion on the crowd (Mt. 8:2) To show our love, “not by having phrases on our lips, but the test of action.” 77 No wonder that Pope Paul ended his encyclical on the great Social Prob lem telling us that union with the Sacrifice of our Saviour will build up an awareness that we must be one in genuine Christian love and concern, if we’re to survive. Sunday of Lent (Feb. 23) Lent is a Community Preparation for Easter. Lent is with us again, and with it the realization that we are preparing to celebrate the great mysteries of our Redemption — the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Many people, thanks be to God, take Lent seriously. Many realize that it is the time for preparation. Many recognize that this is a time of repentance and self-denial. So, you will find many at weekday Mass. You will find many more who are anxious to approach Christ in the Sacrament of Repent ance to be ready when Holy Week and Easter come. Many will think loving ly of the Passion of Our Saviour. They will make the Stations of the Cross each day. An air of expectancy is about, everyone is preparing for something most important. Please God, many of you will be here each day, to learn from the readings of Lent just what we’re preparing for. In the early Church, Lent was a time of preparation for Baptism. Can didates for baptism were baptized at the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday night. And so, for the early Christians, during these 40 days there was a great sense of anticipation. Baptism would see new members added to the Body of Christ. They were to be welcomed into the Church. People who had been taking long instructions in the Christian Faith eagerly intensified their preparation as the day of days—the day of their Baptism—drew nearer. They anticipated it, and their friends also. At the Easter Vigil, they would become Children of God, brothers and sisters of Christ and their already baptized friends— the most important event in their lives. Today we see something like this in the preparation cursillistas make for the entrance of their sponsored candidate into a cursillo. They look forward to the day when the candidate can enjoy the happiness they enjoyed in die Cursillo. They prepare for his entry by penance, securing the penances of others. Other cursillistas are invited to do penance for the candidate. The whole thing has a community aspect to it, becomes a family affair. It is like the preparation for the arrival of a new member in a family. Nowadays, we are not preparing for baptism, but for the renewal of our baptismal promises on Holy Saturday Night. We are looking forward, not in welcoming new members, but to a solemn renewal of our own mem 78 bership. And we do this preparation not in isolation, but as a community. We prepare ourselves, and we do our preparation with a view to helping others, that others might find it easier to live up to their Baptism. We must, during Lent, intensify our consciousness of unity, each with the others. On Holy Saturday Night, as children of our common wonderful Father, as brothers and sisters, we’ll stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder, and publicly renew our baptismal vows. Not just ourselves in selfish isola tion, but together with the other members of God’s Family. It’s to be a family affair, prepared for by die Family. Each one of us needs the assistance of others. Not just the support of the good example and encouragement of others, but the vital support of their being one with us, living branches in the Vine which is Christ. Sin is much more than breaking rules, even God’s rules. Sin is an in tensely dreadful tragedy, a disaster, a catastrophe. It is a man’s deliberately cutting himself off from the God Who loves him, and a deliberately turning his back on die Christian family in which he found life and love. Sin does not iust harm tile sinner, it harms the whole Christian Family. Each Christ ian has his own part in die Church. He counts on support from the rest of God’s family, and they likewise count on him. Baptism united us in Christ. A serious sin, no matter how Secret, ruptures this unity, and the whole family is weakened and injured by the departure of a rebellious member. The Sa crament of Repentance, the renewal of baptism, must be teeing in this light— we only appreciate forgiveness fully when we realize that it involves reconcilia tion with God, yes, but also with one another, the members of God’s family. So, our repentance like all our lenten activity, is a community event, no matter how private and individual it seems. The ideal way of keeping lent in this Christian community way is to gather round the Altar daily, or as often as our duties allow. It is here that the unity in Christ which began in Baptism, is brought to perfection. It was at the first Mass that Jesus used the image of the Vine and branches, widi the same life flowing through the whole plant. Humanity is tending towards unity. As civilization grows, distances dwindle, we’ll soon be “one global village.” Our Lord’s Prayer that they may be one is actually being answered not just in unity between countries but in the sincere efforts of all that Christians be re-united, one fold under one Shepherd. To quote the Vatican Council: “Man is a social being, and can neither live nor develop his gifts alone.” Together then, let’s make our Mass, our Community worship, a real reminder that we are called in one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. Then will our Lent be what it ought to be, and its culmination on Holy Saturday night will be a real step on the pilgrimage we’re making, with Christ as Leader of the Pilgrimage, back to our Father’s Home. CASES AND QUERIES CONSCIENCE AND THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL • Monsignor John V. Sheridan Q: I am a physician specializing in gynecology. A friend of mine in the same field is the father of a large family and, like myself, a prac tical Catholic. Both of us I am sure, subscribe to every word and im plication of Pope Patd’s recently expressed credo. Both of us attend Sunday Mass with our families and receive the Sacraments regularly. Neither of us, as far as I know, has ever recommended artificial con traceptives. Now my question. My friend assures me that he is simply unable to accept as moral absolutes some of the statements made in the re cent papal encyclical. What, then, becomes of his Catholic Faith? Is he supposed to give up the reception of Holy Communion? For so jar he and I are seeking consolation in the authentic nature of the encyclical. What implication does the authentic, as distinct from the infallible, character of this statement of the pope have for my friend or far others like him? No one has yet really clarified this point for the layman. A: Your friend seems to have a sincere problem cf conscience: so let’s begin by saying that he decs not have to, nor indeed can lie. abandon his Faith or give up the reception of the Sacraments because of this problem. At its most profound level a man’s conscience is his moral con sciousness and, in the case of a Catholic, his consciousness of right and wrong is and should be formed and illuminated in and through the * Reprint from Our Sunday Visitor, 22 Sept. 1968, Capsule Comment, p. 1. 80 community of the Church. It is imperative to remember then that the Church’s teaching ministry has always an essential relation to, a claim, on the attention of the believing Catholic conscience, this follows from the Catholic’s recognition of his Church’s position as the Divinely appoint ed guide to God’s will and of his recognition in the Church of a spe cial teaching ministry — the pope and bishops. It is thus the respon sibility of every adult Catholic to try, through God’s grace, to prayerfully assimilate and assent to every authentic expression of the Church’s teach ing ministry, even when he cannot immediately, or after reflection, re cognize its forcefulness. There is, however, a great difference between the Church’s authentic and its infallible teaching. The inability or refusal of a person to accept its infallible teaching places him outside the Church’s actual membership. All the Church’s doctrines, including its infallible doctrines, are of course subject to further growth, expression and clarification. But there is a definitive element in an infallible doctrine that must be recognized as such and that cannot be rejected without cutting oneself off from the Church. Authentic teaching, like infallible teaching, involves not merely the opinions or conclusions of theologians, or of individual bishops; it in volves the belief of the whole Church as expressed in different ways, in cluding statements of its teaching ministry, of which the pope is the supreme spokesman; it involves a special and direct help from God given to the Church (and to the pope in the Church) at a particular period of its history, and without which the Church’s visible continuity or unity could not survive. Monsignor Lambruschini, who presented the papal encyclical on family responsibility to a group of newsmen, said that “from a theolo gical viewpoint the document is not to be considered infallible but ... an important sign of pontifical unity in the traditions of Pope Pius XI and Pius XII. . . The faithful know that the pope, the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ, has a special assistance of the Holy Spirit which goes with the mission of confirming in the Faith, and in the ways of the Lord, all the members of the people of God, including the brothers in the episcopate. And this assistance does not restrict itself to infallible definitions... Loyal and full assent, interior and exterior, 81 must be given in proportion to the level of the authority from which it emanates. In this case,” he said, “the authority is that of the supreme pontiff, and its object is most serious since it is a matter of the tormented question of birth regulation” ... which should not be left in ... “a (permanent) condition of vague problematics.” But the internal religious assent to the noninfallible but authentic teaching of the Church as expressed in a particular papal statement is or may be provisional or conditional. It is motivated not by a cleat recognition that it is God’s direct and immutable command, nor by the intrinsic persuasiveness of the particular statement, but by an obedience or submission to a Divinely established (but human) teaching ministry without which the Church could not survive. Understand, the Church’s authentic teaching is geared not merely to affirm or clarify God’s voice but to protect its members from the constant fear of serious error in Faith and morals and to provide a practical and justifiable basis for their Christian life and action. The Church or pope may, absolutely speaking, alter, modify or even reverse some aspects of its authentic teaching in response, e.g., to the further study and illumination of God’s word or to radically new knowledge acquired in the fields of anthropology or psy chology. Monsignor Lambruschini was reported by the Associated Press to have said that, “The ruling (on contraceptives) is not unreformable.” The religious assent due to authentic teaching is based on a humble readiness to learn and assimilate the mind of the Church at a given moment of history and to commit oneself to Christ within the framework of the Church at that moment. But if, as in the case you mention, an informed Catholic, after having struggled with his conscience, finds it impossible to accept or assimilate a particular authentic, as distinct from infallible, statement, then he may act personally and privately in accord ance with his own conscientious conviction. Obviously, however, he cannot or should not make his own conscientious conviction a basis for challenging or usurping the magisterial ministry of the Church, or confusing others who appreciate, need and accept the guidance of the Church on this as well as on other matters. We should not forget that in the case of the present encyclical, the pope has had, of course, the help of the Holy Spirit, but also access to 82 all sources of relevant information and all kinds of expert thinking and that his statements came after long and suffering deliberation. If we are reflectively and prayerfully honest with ourselves, then, we will try (even at great personal sacrifice) to see and follow the pope’s teaching on the subject. His Holiness, himself, made the point that it would be impossible for some to accept his teaching without a special grace. It is worth remembering, in this connection, that we cannot live any of the deeper demands cf Christian morality without special Divine help. This does not mean that Christianity is joyless. Christian self-giving is the best guarantee of genuine joy. Further, in situations involving hard personal discipline, physical or intellectual, we can be dishonest with ourselves even while we claim or feel we are acting from motives of the purest honesty. Illicit birth control is a peculiar species of sin or temptation that, though rooted in crass selfishness, will always find eloquent and emotional defenders. The mental image of a suddenly exploded, famine-ridden population, of con genital disease or of large poverty-stricken families of irresponsible pa rents can so easily relieve the pangs of conscience and justify the self indulgence of those deliberately childless ones who can afford to have a family. Finally, ours tends strongly to be a hedonist-humanist culture where everyone, including Christians, can be deluded into thinking that genuine Christianity and responsible love are possible without prayer and sacrifice. I think the burden of all the pope’s recent statements has been to react to and refute such delusions, to restress and reaffirm those basic (but forgotten) values without which Christian humanism is a name only. If we see his encyclical in this context we wili find it easier to respond prayerfully to its demands. THE CHURCH HERE AND THERE Three New Parishes Erected in Pampanga Due to the vastness of established parochial territories and the rather rapid increase of Catholic population in Pampanga, Most Rev. Emilio Cinense, D.D., Bishop of San Fernando Diocese, Pampanga, deemed it op portune to erect three new parishes. The newly formed parishes are Imma culate Conception, San Agustin and Santo Nino. The first two were established on the 23rd of December 1965 while the last one was put up on October 24, 1968. Immaculate Conception Parish, the See of which is located in the barrio of Balibago, formerly was part of Lourdes Parish, Angeles City. The barrios encompassed by the new parish are Balibago, Malabanias, Anunas and Sitio Subic. San Agustin Parish has for its See the barrio of San Agustin. Com prising this new parish are the barrios of San Agustin, del Carmen, San Vicente, San Isidro Agtas and Alasas which were detached from San Fernando Parish. From the Parish of Calulut was detached the barrio of del Rosario and added to the territory making up the new parish. Santo Nino Parish has its See in the barrio of Santo Nino. The barrios of Santo Nino, San Juan, Magliman and sitios Bulaclac Village and Pinagtapunan which were all detached from San Fernando, compose this new parish. Asian Catholic Doctors’ Congress support “Humanae Vitae’’ One of the resolutions passed by the Fourth Asian Catholic Doctors' Congress, held at Sophia University, Tokyo, from October 10 to 15, was a pledge of filial loyalty to the Holy Father and of adhenence to the magis terium of the Church, with particular reference to the recent encyclical “Hu manae Vitae”. Catholic Doctors from seven Asian countries joined their Japanese col leagues for a four-day discussion of common medical problems and Christ ian ethics. Among the 170 doctors who attended the conference, the largest foreign delegation was the 15-man group from th Philippines, the other coun tries represented being Korea, India, Australia, Ceylon, Taiwan and Hong 84 The opening ceremonies were attended by the Minister for Health and Welfare, Mr. Sunao Sonoda; the President of the Japan Medical Associa tion, Dr. Taro Takemi; the Pro-Nuncio to Japan, Most Rev. Bruno Wuestenberg; and the President of Sophia University, Father Francis Oizumi, S.J. Among its other resolutions, the Congress appealed for the establishment of more Catholic Medical Schools in Asia, and urge Asian doctors to serve society in their native lands instead of settling in Western countries, as so many do. The Congress also recognized the serious need of a more enlightened and Cliristian-orient.ed teaching of sex education, and condemned the rampant exploitation of sex in advertisement and mass media. Death of Cardinal Bea His Eminence Cardinal Augustin Bea died early Saturday morning, November 16th, after a brief illness. Pope Paul VI had visited the Cardinal at “Villa Stuart’’ Clinic two days before. Born in 1881 in Riedboringen, Germany, he was Superior of the Jesuit House in Aachen during the period of the First World War, in 1921 he was named Provincial Superior of the Southern German Province. During these years he became well acquainted with Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli, the Papal Nuncio in Munich. He was made a Cardinal by Pope John XXIII at a Consistory on De cember 14, 1959 at the age of 78. Always a studious and active pri.est, it was in his latter years that his intense activity in the field of Ecumenism attracted world-wide attention. Cardinal Bea was currently President of the Secretariat for Union of Christians. Indulgences Manual The Holy See’s Enchiridion indulgentiarum (Manual of Indulgence), whose publication was officially announced on June 28, went into effect on October 29. The new Enchiridion drastically reduces the number of prayers and acts to which indulgences are attached. An innovation is the removal of indulgences from various specific prayers, and the attachment of such indulgences to kinds of prayers in specific cir cumstances. These are three in number: The first “Concession”—as the Enchiridion calls it—of indulgences is attached to invocations made to God by a person carrying out his duties or encountering adversities. 85 The Enchiridion says that “a partial indulgence is granted to a Christian who, in fulfilling his duties or supporting life’s adversities, lifts his soul to God with humble trust and recites, even if only mentally, a pious invocation.” Invocations under such circumstances are referred to in the Enchiridion as acts of piety. Similar concessions are granted for acts grouped under general headings of charity and penance. Msgr. Giovanni Sessolo, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vati can office that handles indulgences, observed in June in presenting the new norms to the press, that the first type of concession “gives value to ordinarv life.” The second—under the heading of charity, has a “social character,” he said. He described the third—under the heading of acts of penance—as having an ‘educative character’. The Enchiridion contains about 210 pages, of which about one-third arc devoted to concessions, one-third to instructions and commentary, and the rest to the apostolic constitution Indulgsfntiarum Doetrina of January 1, 1967. A decree of the Apostolic Penitentiary, which declared the new Enchiridion in force, recalls that the apostolic constitution had declared: “The Enchiri dion Indulgentiarum will be reviewed in such a way that only the most im portant prayers and works of piety, of charity and of penance, will have indul gences attached.” L’Osservatore Replies to Critics Raimondo Manzini, editor of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican City daily, replied to charges by the association of German Catholic journalists that the Vatican paper had presented one-sided reports of the reactions to Pope Paul Vi’s encyclical on birth control Humanae Vitae. In a letter to the chairman of the German association, Manzini said that his paper had reported the “innumerable texts” of positive, or favourable, reac tions to the encyclical because the secular press and a “certain Catholic press” had printed only negative reactions. He added that L’Osservatore Romano had published and would continue to publish a series of articles “in which any criticism of the encyclical is dis cussed, naturally to oppose it.” In this manner, he said, negative reactions are made known. 86 The editor concluded his letter by saying: “It is very difficult for L’Osservatore Romano to publish negative statements without comment, particu larly since they often lack the formal respect due to the Holy Father.” Padre Pio’s Pledge of Obedience to Encyclical The Vatican has released a letter written by the late Padre Pio to Pope Paul VI, pledging love and loyalty to the Pope and “unconditional obedience’ to his encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae. Padre Pio wrote to the Pope that he was writing the letter to “unite my self spiritually with my brothers. ... in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of Him whom you represent on earth.” He also pledged that his order would “renew its own vitality” in follow ing the directives of the Second Vatican Council and to be ready to assist th: Pope in the face of great difficulties. "I know that your heart suffers a great deal in these days over the fate of the Church, world peace, the many needs of the people and above all because of the lack of obedience of some — even Catholics — to die high teach ings which you give us. . . “I thank you... for your clear and decisive words, particularly in the last encyclical Humanae Vitae and reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obe dience to your directives,’ he concluded. “The Laity Today” The (Vatican) Council on the Laity has begun publication of a bulle tin as an “official and regular instrument to keep people in touch with the life and activities of the council’. In his introductory statement in the first issue of The Laity Toirlay, Car dinal Roy of Quebec, president of the council, said that “the manifold under takings of the laity in the post-conciliar Church, the questions raised by the ever greater place they must take in the Church’s mission, with all that this implies from the point of view of structures, these are all subjects which are focusing attention more and more, and it is important to know, in their re gard, what th: magisterium has to say and what is actually happening in the world.” The Cardinal recalled that such contact had been maintained for eight years by Lay Apostolate, the bulletin of the Permanent Committee for international Congresses of the Lay Apostolate. 87 Included in the scope of The Laity Today as cited by Cardinal Roy are: the words of the Pope on questions of immediate concern to the laity; infor mation about the decisions or activities of the laity council; international Cath olic life and the major events of interest to lay people in various countries; bi bliographical material, and material from studies or inquiries concerning the laity “and their varied commitments in the Church and the world.” The 20th World Seminar of Bible Translators On October 19, the directors of the 20th World Seminary of Bible trans lators, which was held from September 20 to October 25 at the Nganda Cen tre, Kinshasa, organized an academic session, followed by a reception. Numerous Protestant and Catholic personalities of the capital attended, as well as all those participating in the seminar. Among others were: the Rev. A. Marthinson, of the Biblical Society of the Congo; the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Bruno Torpigliani; Archbishop Joseph-Albert Malula of Kinshasa; Mgr. Moke, the Vicar General; and the provincial superiors of die Jesuits and the Scheut Fathers. In his welcoming address, the Rev. A. Marthinson spoke of the numerous Congolese languages which were represented at the seminar by some 80 par ticipants, about 30 of whom were Cadiolics. He brought out the important work realized by the Bible translators, who, in the entire world, number some 3,000 people working at its translation into more than 200 languages, under the auspices of the Universal Bibl.e Alliance. Dr. E. A. Nida, secretary to the translation department of the American Bible Society, expressed his gratitude for all that had been done in the Congo in the field of Bible translation. He mentioned that, throughout the world, the Sacr.ed Scriptures have been translated, in whole or in part, into 1,325 languages, the entire Bible into 242 languages, and the New Testament into 307 languages. The task, however, has not yet been completed, as there re main about a thousand other languages. Dominicans Announce Changes at Close of Chapter Greater Decentralization and Democratization Decentralization and democratization are the major changes made by the general chapter of the Dominican order during its two-month meeting at die Aquinas Institute of Philosophy in River Forest, Illinois. The chapter — the first held by the order since Vatican Council II — drew over 100 delegates from mote dian 40 provinces throughout the world. 88 Among the major changes is an entirely rewritten constitution, which was be promulgated in November. The new document provides changes in the structure and the apostolate of the lO.OOO member order. Other changes include: —Decentralization of legislative authority with regional provinces and local communities empowered to adapt and implement the norms of the order in ways most sensitive to local needs and circumstances. —DemotWfization of the governmental structure of the order by abolishing all voting privileges formerly attached to certain academic titles, lowering the age of qualification to vote for election of superiors to eight years after en trance into the Dominicans and allowing Brothers to vote for the first time. The chapter also placed primary power for governing Dominican commu nities in the hands of local chapters composed of all priests and Brothers ol a house or region, under the presidency of an elected superior or prior. All major policy decisions will be made in these chapters. All regional provinces in the order will now be required to establish prio rities in determining the Dominican apostolates in their areas, with the gene ral Dominican objectives of^ .Gospel witness through the intellectual life of teaching and research, writing and preaching. The chapter also decentralized seminary and religious formation studies to allow for regional variation and experimentation. Regional provinces have also received authorization to permit smaller communities for priests and Broth ers to live and work in university and gnetto communities. The chapter sponsored a petition of the Congregation of Rites in the name of the 10,000 Dominicans to authorize the Dominican master general to allow controlled liturgical experiments in the choral divine office and the daily Do minican prayer without necessary recourse to the Congregation. The chapter authorized establishment of a central public relations and press office for the order and issued a statement on academic freedom. The statement said: “Our brethren enjoy that legitimate freedom to dis pute and to publish which, in authentic fidelity towards the Church, really leads to a fuller understanding and a better explanation of the mysteries of salvation. “Superiors should prevent abuses in this regard”, the statement said, “but at the same time, they should not hesitate to strengthen and help those bre thren who are considering new questions, to wisely and prudently set out con temporary problems in the light of the Gospel.” 89 The statement concluded: “No one should dare to raise suspicions ot make accusations, or spread them about anyone, but in a spirit of mutual confidence, should difficulties arise, let everyone share them in an open dia logue among brothers and superiors, so that the difficult work of doctrinal re newal can proceed in all charity and truth.” The statement was issued as a response to members of the order who had expressed concern about Father Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., whose works are under investigation by the Doctrinal Congregation in Rome. A “must” for Your Library ' — Just off the press ' “THE WORLD AS SEEN BY A FILIPINO ARCHBISHOP” * Contains nearly 500 pages divided between the English and Spanish sections with pictures; measures (>” x Binding is attractively done in morocco or in hardcover. It is the author’s latest book on his latest travels around the i world — Asia, Europe, America, Holy Land, North America and | other places. It contains Vatican Il’s pronouncements on questions of mo dern importance, as well as the author’s own personal observations , on the Vatican Council and his involvement in it as Council Father ' from his own country—the Philippines. Price—P10.00 a copy postpaid. I Send your order to: [ Archbishop’^ Residence ! Jaro, Iloilo City The Catholic Trade Schoo] Cebu City The Catholic Trade School Manila The Republic News I Cebu City I BOOK REVIEWS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CHURCH TODAY: A REPLY TO CHARLES DAVIS. By Gregory Baum. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968. 222 pp. £ 4.95. The January 12, 1967 issue of the National Catholic Reporter provided interesting reading; it contained a reprint of Charles’ Davis’ statement explain ing his leaving the Church and, right beside it, a reply by Gregory Baum. Since then both articles have expanded and blossomed into two outstanding books: Davis’ A Question of Conscience and Baum’s The Credibility of the Church Today. The book by theologian Gregory Baum is less a reply to Charles Davis than an occasion to present a contemporary picture of ecdesiology. What is presented is Baum’s viewpoint of the Church and the major changes of focus that he sees has been brought about, at least in germ, by Vatican II. The conciliatory tone of the book betrays the extent to which Baum is steeped in ecumenical work. The opening pages draw the boundaries for the sketching of the vast landscape of his appealing ecdesiology, or, more accurately, remove the idea of boundaries, since Baum’s picture is a panorama of an “Open Church”; “Church has become a divine message revealing what happens wherever peo ple live in community” (p. 54). The documents of Vatican II provide the foundation of his ideas on the inclusive nature of the Church* indeed he says categorically, “The crucial difference between Davis and myself lies in the evaluation of Vatican II”. (p. 12). He traces the word Church through the conciliar documents and presents six different senses in which the word is used and its six acceptions as pertaining to: the Catholic Church, the local congregation, the community of all the baptized, the people of Israel, the com munity of all mankind, and finally the family or “any small unity where people become friends.” Baum looks upon the Church, therefore, as one of two as pects of the reality of the human situation; the negative aspect being original sin, “the inevitably sinful situation in which man is bom and in which he cannot grow up without being profoundly marked by it” (p. 28), and the positive aspect being the Church, “God’s redemptive involvement in human life” (p. 53). Before settling down to the task of reconciling his universalist view of the Church with the unique claim of the Roman Catholic confession, the author introduces a chapter in what he calls “social pathology” to situate his 91 very ready agreement with analysis of the New Testament conflict between Christ and the Scribes and Pharisees, Baum, relying heavily on Congar, points out that the conflict presents, not a historical description of particular sects, but a warning to the early Christian community and to the Church in all ages of the danger of smug complacency and hardness of heart that so easily plagues all institutionalized structures. The defense proper of the credibility of the Church consists in a rather dim view of time-honored arguments, “We conclude that the traditional ar guments . . . attempting to prove the credibility of the Catholic Church are inadequate” (p. 120) and a positive presentation upholding the Church’s Unique claim as based on its growth and balance by maintaining a health tension between local and universal unity, and between past and present. This tension is maintained at great odds even in this period of the Church’s tran sition when she is in the process of refocussing the Gospel entrusted to her and somewhat heterogenously adjusting other aspects of herself according to this new transference of the center of her message for modem ecumenical man. The final section of the book is a projection into the future, in which the Church is seen to be not so much a definite iron-clad organization but an entity based upon the sociological model of a movement (such as a political party), where membership boundaries are nebulous and where it is the spirit of the individuals and not the state of the institution that matters. The author’s contagiously expansive and hopeful outlook on the Church is somehow communicated as the reader goes through the book. And yet some one familiar with Davis’ way of thought will understand why Davis remains unmoved and shows concern for Baum’s “carelessness of method that plays fast and loose with data.” (National Catholic Reporter, June 2d, 1968). Baum’s inclusive and conciliatory view of the Church does seem to put him a few steps ahead of die Council, in spite of his contention that it is the Council tliat is pulling him forward. His analysis of the Council’s understanding of the Church, for example, turns out to be less a study of the documents’ basic ideas than a use of the documents’ words to project an ecdesiology that Baum hopes will be. Thus, evaluated as "a reply to Charles Davis,” the remark Davis himself makes is very much to the point: “What I consider the deepest difference between us ... is the differing stress each of us places upon die need for rigorous method and objective criteria in discerning truth.” Baum’s is an expansive and loving approach, Davis’ is a disciplined and ordered reasoning, and if Davis is to be properly answered, he should be met on his grounds. But a point-by-point refutation is the farthest tiling from Baum’s mind; indeed, lie sometimes gives the impression of giving away more territory than he 92 should to ensure his stand on the Church’s unique claim: he elaborates and sustains Davis’ criticism of ecclesial corruption, he dismisses the traditional arguments a little too peremptorily, he seems unsure of his moorings with the tradition that he boasts the Church has, and he avoids confronting the issue of authority and hierarchy in the Church. But, evaluated as a work on “die Church today,” the book is a treasure house of ideas worthy of note, insights into the ecumenical movement, original sin, soc'al pathology in the Church, the healthy tensions that bring the Church to growth and maturity. The picture of the future of the Church is a refreshing one, and one that even Davis accepts and commends. T/’e Credibility of the Church, therefore, is far from putting a definitive end to the flurry of commentary on the Davis affair; for after all, one's evaluation of the Church ultimately depends on one’s faith and personal ex perience as well as on reason. In the last analysis Davis sees the Church as intrinsically obsolete even if several of its members are good, while Baum sees th? Church as intrinsically good even if several of its members are obsolete. The book, though, is a valuaole addition to Davis commentaries in so far as it provides one with a more expansive, hopeful view of the Church and its possibilities than one might originally have had. • Bro. Victor Ordonez, F.S.C. THE WORLD OF PERSONS by Charles Winkelmans de Cldty S.J. London: Burns & Oates', 1967. 441 pages. Father de Clety is a Belgian Jesuit who is now a missionary in Calcutta where he is assigned pastor. Intimately forged with his missionary spirit which motivated his religious vocation is an intense philosophical spirit of independent thinkng and synthesis, which culminated in a tremendous book in 1966. Thi? same work was presented by the author to fulfill the PHD requirements at the University of Poona. The book as the author himself describes is an examination of “the discovery in one’s own experience of the universe as a system of inter-related persons progressing towards an end”; or “a detailed analysis of our integral experience.” A philosophy of a personal world-vision, the author uses to a great extent, the phenomenological method in an attempt to harmonize the past and the contempo-philosophies extracting therefrom his own viewpoints and criticism, and coining terms which he believes would be more adaptable and alive to the problems and aspirations of the contemporary man. He is of the firm belief that the schoolmen’s well entrenched philosophy is overly polluted with inflexible conceptualism and obsolete categories which has made its assimilation a great obstacle. 93 Father de Clety’s work concerts with the timeless philosophies in its “exem plary methodological rigour and on its conception of philosophy which makes □f thinking an action and of speculative research a progress of the soul to wards its own kingdom.” Understandably, the refinements and intricacies of a thesis work are put to a big advantage in revealing the process of the per son’s journey towards the Creative Presence as the apex of an autlsentic self discovery in a world of persons. What results is a vigorous elaboration of a prismatic interpretation of human existence. An interpretation which is logical, comprehensive and exegetical. And this oertainly does not make this book an easy reading as missionary du ties does not always make fine company with philosophical travelogues. When the reader however has gotten into his contentions, they result in an experience which is both enriching and insightful, a happy finish line after a sustained and prolonged reflection. He may not however agree with the Fathers all throughout, but only a philosopher worth his salt establishes his conclusions after the reciprocal reverential exposition has been made, a rigid objective ef fort has been employed and the method of the author always at the fore of the reader. The title could very well be misinterpreted. But for a serious work which has been tried and fired for 18 years, The World of Persons accomplishes a feat which will never be confused with another commonplace philosophy which has undergone a personalistic retouch by an overnight philosopher. His in cisive incursions into the human nature, temporality and the life-act communi cates a “measure of intrepedity” which refreshes the mind from the severe regimentation of the obvious and the positive. Stimulating, here’s a rare book out to challenge any reader with a knack for serious matters. • Norberto Castillo, O.P. CHRIST AND CRISIS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA. Edited by Gerald H. Anderson, New York: Friendship Press, 1968. pp. 167, £ 1.75. As we read on die inside of the front cover, “this book gives the kind of up-to-date report on the present state of the churches in Southeast Asia that cannot be found in any other book in any language. Seven Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars, all with long missionary experience in the area, give first-hand reports on the current situation of the churches in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Nordi Vietnam, South Vietnam, Malaysia, Sin gapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines.’ The authors have added to dieir painstaking research in gathering an impressive wealth of material scattered in many books and magazines, their 94 invaluable personal experience obtained in many years of missionary work in their respective mission field. This explains well the fact why they have been able often to enrich their work with a first hand information, numerous well established facts and a wealth of statistics, which fill the 167 pages of the book. For this reason, this work will undoubtedly prove of great help to the general reader who wishes to inform himself of the religious affairs of this part of the world, and most specially to the professor of the Southeast Asia ecclesiastical History. Without a shadow of a doubt, we may dare af firm that the need for this book has been keenly felt in Christian schools and seminaries in the Philippines. Now it comes to fill a gap. However, speaking in matters pertaining to the Philippines we cannot but disagree with some statements concerning the Religious orders and their facts, which in our opinion need a more detailed explanation, if they are to be fair and in total harmony with historical truth. These statements are found in pages 138 and 139, and they seem to be a reflection of the wellknown Propaganda movement, unleashed during the last two decades of the XIX Century and the first of the XX, against four Monastic Orders, which, on account of their religious, social, and to-some-degree-polideal influence over the minds and hearts of the Filipinos, and come to be the mainstay »f the Spanish dominion in the Islands. • Fr. Pablo Fernandez, O.P. FERIA, FERIA, LUGTU & LA’O ATTORNEY'S AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW PHILIPPINE TRUST BLDG.. PLAZA GOITI • P. O. BOX 1219 • MANILA MILK CHOCOLATE BEST 10 CENTAVO MILK CHOCOLATE BAR MONEY CAN BUY Manufactured by: PUEO HERMANOS Tel. 9-23-51 P. (). Pox 2901 Manila JOAQUIN RAMIREZ FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. RAFAEL ORTIGAS JOAQUIN RAMIREZ, JR. RAFAEL ORTIGAS, JR. fiamirpH ©rtigas Abngabns FILIPINAS BUILDING • PLAZA MORAGA • MANILA • 1’0. BOX 43. TEL. 3-93-77 BEAUTY IN STAINED GLASS Jobs executed in following churches: Sto. Domingo Church San Marcelino Church Malate Church San Isidro Church San Ildefonso Church Cath. Center Chapel Quiapo Church Sta. Cruz Church Central Church Knox Memorial Church Ellinwood Church . . . and many more all over the Philippines VKRAUT art glass'neon 879 Bl LI BID VIEJO • MANILA TEL 3-39-23