The Linacre Quarterly
Volume 35 | Number 3 Article 5
August 1968 Contraception: A Matter of Practical Doubt? John C. Ford
John J. Lynch
Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq
Recommended Citation Ford, John C. and Lynch, John J. (1968) "Contraception: A Matter of Practical Doubt?," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 35 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol35/iss3/5 Fame or Vocation? ... An Editorial Who has made head-line notoriety important to a physician? Cou it be the physician himself? - Yet centuries of ethic have dictated that the ph ·ian avoid self-aggrandisement in pursuit of the health and well-being of his pat . Could it ...... ,. _.' NOTE. Since the publication of the encyclical be Hospital Administration? - Yet hospital administration's sol oncem is vitae, dated July 25, 1968, it has become allegedly better facilities for better health care. Could it be Fund Ad istrators? Clear that the supreme rnagisterium of the Yet their aim is the accumulation of monies to endow better complete not in a state of doubt as to the intrinsic research. Of course, any professional in finance will admit that ll Uect, you of contraception. Consequently, the essential must magnetize the public. Alas, somewhere along the way , error I .:rept into of the following article written last March and this ideally cooperative trilogy. published in April - now stands again confirmed by clear and explicit teaching of Pope Paul VI, who 1res. Most Much has been written about the ethics of transplantation proc his encyclical that he spoke as he did of emphasis has been on the morality of the donor. Who has challeng, ne validity llllil'liCirtDtioli "by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by of the recipient? Much remains to be researched in immu 1ppressant phenomena. Animal transplantation has not been ideal to this e. Kidney transplant has moved from the laboratory to the human with a 1wledge of these handicaps but with the solace that the recepient has a second ney should the transplant fai l. Who has two hearts? Has it yet been proved tha 1tting out a human heart, while viable even though diseased, is not murder? I ;ician heed your vocation! \\ E. aception: A Matter of Practical Doubt? This Issue .. . Rev. Joh n C. Ford, S.J. and Rev. John J. Lynch, S.J. Unique for several reasons is this August Issue of Linacre:
,ent a paper First : After a long silence, two eminent moral theologians on contraception positioned from the alocutions of the 1es. This was presented to Linacre and to Homiletic and Pastoral Rer at the same time. The latter had the earlier publication date of 11. Since the reading audiences of the two journals would overlap bu Jrely, Father Aidan Carr of H. & P. Review has granted permission I 1s to publish also. now over four years since considerable number of competent controversy over contraception moralists of repute- to say nothing of Second: An embryological review of the medical literature veri fi ... commonplace among Catholic certain individual members of the of life from the earliest known embryo. .:otDRullls. Today we have with us a hierarchy- who wi ll either de ny or at least call in q uestion the validity of Monsignor Harrington, an attorney, offers the fi rst ol •w o articles i~ traditiona l Church teaching on Third: Ford is Professor of Pastoral which, by recorded legal decisions the existence of the p< -,on in utero IS contraception in general. Apparently at Weston College. He was there are certain others, increasingly proven. Professor of Moral Theology at the Gregorian in Rome, and few in nu mber, who wi ll restrict their Although the facts in all these papers have been avai bi 11.' to seeke~o~ challenge to the teaching of Pius XII 1 Oltholic University of America. the truth, the recordings have been scattered and diversl fhis is tlleth ~ Lynch is Professor of Moral with respect to oral coni racept ives, time they have been assembled for ready reference. We hope_ t_hat ;ill Pastoral Theology at Wesron although they still pledge allegiance to who are entrusted with the authority to ma k~· declstons He is a member of the traditional doctrine relative to other acknowledge the validity of these researches. Board of Linacre Quarrerly.) modes of artificial birth control.
158 Linaae QuarterlY 159 The question, therefore, stands: that up to late 1963 or , ly 1964 contraceptives and not with teaching on contraception, or of the writings 6 May one assume that the morality of Catholic theologians in th1 in general. With due possibility t hat new medical purposes contraception in any or all of its forms had been for all practi e< for the possibility that the information m ight require tion of is presently in a state of practical unanimous in their re_ to "the relevant norms of modification of Pius Xll's position on grounds. doubt and that consequently one may, contraception on mora! XII" embraced also the broader the pill. But we are aware of no ·ize their by legitimate recourse to probabilism, Dissension began to chara ~ of contraception in any form evidence to support the idea that he nly with solve that doubt in favor of freedom publications on this issue history of the matter nonethele~ ever had any doubt about the • articles, to practice contraception, at least the appearnace then of tl favors the more restricted substantial teaching of Pius XI and 2 Louvain, when serious grounds can be invoked by Canon Louis Janssens t a tion of the allusion. 7 Pius XJ I on contraception. In fact , the ..:r W. van for so doing? Belgium, by Dominican F· however, it makes little evidence points in the opposite der Marck 3 of Nijmegen, I land, and 4 since Pope Paul's reasons direction. We two authors of this article are of by Auxiliary Bishop J. r-.~ ~euss of endorsing Pius XJ I's norms with the conviction that as of today (March Mainz, Germany. to the piJI would a fortiori I, 1968) this theological state of also to aU other forms of It would also seem necessary to concede that the 1964 statement affairs does not obtain, and that the It was doubtless by wa •ra a~otJi o n. doctrine of the Church on to articles and discussiL represents a doctrinal expression of the Church's position and not merely a contraception is not "~ a state of these that Paul VI, on Ju , the text itself would seem disciplinary measure,8 It must be practical doubt" in this sense. It is not issued the first of sever; tatements Jeclucle any personal doubt on our intention here to attempt either to on the matter. Speaki on that remembered, first of all , that the VI's part in his confirmation of .. relevant norms" of Pius XJI were v i ndicate the theological and occasion to a group of l Ji naJs, the norms of Pius Xfl . If truthful philosophical bases of this doctrine, or Pope introduced the sub, ! of birth beyond question of a doctrinal ki nd, mean anything, the Pope's to establish the position that in its control, reaffirmed the ht of the and it was these norms that Paul that " We. do not so far see substance it pe rtains to the Church to "proclaim the 'W of God reaffirmed in a context of proclaiming ldequate reason for considering unchangeable teaching of the Catholic (emphasis added] in t light of the law of God. Cogent substantiation norms of Pius XJ I to be Church. We want merely to advance scientific, social, and chological of this point is provided in these and therefore no longer our reasons for maintaining that up to truths," and assured his lienee that observations ma de by R. A. made. to ' must express concomitant McCormick, S.J.: now the magisterium has in no sense every effort was bei1 as to the truth of what Pius retreated from its perennial position as conduct such a study wh he hoped summarized so clearly by both Pius XI would be completed the near His subsequent qualification of ... it seems difficult to maintain statement ("at least as long as We in Casti connubii and by Pius XJI in future. Thereupon he dded this ~t . ~e statement was merely not consider Ourselves in his 1951 address to obstetrical nurses. statement on the subject dJSCiplinary ...... a disciplinary And since (in common with what obliged to modify them") d.ecree wou ld have, in the lignify no more than his crrcumstances, made little or no appears to be a very large majority of that he was not closing his sense. As everyone knows theologians of all schools) we cannot But meanwhile We SB \ ranklY that ears, or mind to any new disciplinary decrees, like Churcl~ see either logical or theological We do not so far see y adequate or argumentation which laws, are subject to excusation justification for approving the oral reason for considerin1· ..he relevant through proportionate reason. As contraceptives while at the same time norms of Pius XJl to superseded make necessary so me disciplinary, the decree would have and therefore no lonv• obligatory; Bcaticm of a conviction which in rejecting other artificial methods of bound only in so fa r as there was they should, therefor,. be regardded 1964, he held firmly. With the birth control, we shall speak for the 0 no legitimate excusing cause. As as valid, at least as h' ·g as We . in session restating Ca tholic soon as a couple would experience most part on ly of contraception, on not consider 0 rselves 1n the understanding that the term in our with development of hardship fr om its observance (and conscience obliged to modifY in the air; with a special what couple would not?), it would vocabulary is intended to inc1 ude that 5 them. already in existence to cease to bind them. PracticalJy this use of "the pill" which by direct 1 in depth "certain questions" wo uld mean that Pope Paul had intent is cootraceptive. on the occasion of the issued a disciplinary decree which Most would probably agree - would not bind in at least very about the pill, it is not to many cases - hence which would The 1964 Papal Statement although documentary oroof of ~ ~IO Sl~d that Paul VJ was unaware 111 be practically meaningless. One is point is simply not avaibble - that the possibility tha t legitimate Utis statement Paul VI was principallY· hesitant to accuse the Supreme The theologically knowledgeable development might caJI for Pontiff of perpetrating an aU but person would, in all likelihood, agree if not exclusively, concerned with the IIOI'nn.,l .. t ;,.., of our traditional meaningless decree.9
160 Linacre QuarterlY 16 1 Consequently it seems to us paths that are disappro" 1 by the with unusual force and clarity be considered as stilJ valid. The matter impossible to avoid the conclusion that Magisterium in its expl 1tion of of Paul VI on contraception. 1 2 is all tJ1e more serious and dangerous as late as mid-1964 the magisterium of the divine law. seeing that in some quarters a certain the Church, as presented in weeks before the close of opinion seems to be gaining ground authoritative papal teaching, had not This text certainly does t detract II, while ·the section on rather widely: to wit, that these detracted or departed in a.ny way from or depart in a.ny way om the in the Constitution on the pronouncements of the Supreme the traditional teaching on the matter traditional teaching of the ( uch, and in the Modem World was stilJ Pontiffs are already obsolete and of contraception; nor did Paul VI's we maintain that these t\\ ,entences finaJ revision , Cardinal therefore can be ignored. convictions in this respect, according in their very wording, in tl• context, -.~~ ... ,u, Vatican Secretary of State, to his own testimony, differ from in their history, and a officially .....Liuil'Lc of Paul VI addressed a Secondly, it is absolutely necessary those of his predecessor. (I.nciden taUy, explained to the Council tthers by to Cardinal Ottaviani as head of that the methods and instruments of in his address of February 12, 1966, the Theological Commissir s reports, Theological Commission whose rendering conception ineffectuaJ - the Pope explicitly reaffirmed the and even apart from foo t ~" e 14, deal it was to prepare the that is to say, the contraceptive position he had taken in June, with contraception and p 1ibit it. If text for the approval of Pope methods which are dea.lt with in the 1964.) 1 ° Finally, there had not been they do not prohibit Cl' aception, Council. Dated November 23, Encyclical Letter "Casti connubii" up to that time, nor have there been what meaning do they h:. ' It is our and communicated to the be openly rejected; for in this matter, since, any authoritativf? statements contention, furthermorv that the the following day, the admitting doubts, keeping silence, or .. from bishops or groups of bishops (in second of these sentt ..: s, taken read as folJows: insinuating opinions that the necessity ... . together with its footn1 reference i • • •. the form, for instance of diocesan or From the Vatican Palace of such methods is perhaps to be (n. 14) to Paul VI's state• nt of June regional pastoral letters) which depart 23 November, 1965 admitted, can bring about the gravest 23, 1964, excludes, as did, any from the traditional teaching or give Eminent and Most Reverend dangers to the general opinion. grounds for treating this teaching as state of practical doub ·ven with 1 regard to the pill, al calls for being in a state of practical doubt.' willing fulftll~ent of my office, I Furthermore, it is most fitting that adherence to the norms Pius XII. to you that the August the aforesaid text speak clearly about One must keep in mi n• of course, desires that you, by reason of the fostering of conjugal chastity, and that the Council Fathers voting for 196S:Pope Paul a.nd Vatican IJ office a.nd authority which are about the proper manner of using the conciliar texts gave authority inform the Commission which marriage for the sake of human dignity After many vicissitudes in of the Church only • the texts considering the modi for Schem; and in accordance with divine law. committee the principal text on themselves, not to the f• notes. The is deliberating about its contraception in Vatican II finally famous note 14 is very ·10rtant fOJ On a page which is attached to this that there are certain points read as follows: showing the meaning the text letter some "modi" are indicated must of necessity be corrected according to the mind ol .e Conciliar which it seems should be introduced text which is to be proposed to Father - or at least the ,, ds of those into the text. Accordingly the moral character of Session of the Ecumenical subcommittee members ho drafted the conduct, when there is question Vatican II, with regard to the l.n communicating these matters to the note, and .:ommissiOO of reconciling conjugal love with thos~ which treats "of promoting the you, l gladly avail myself of the the responsible transmission of life , members who voted •r it. But of marriage and the family." does not depend solely on a sincere opportunity of professing myself with conciliar footnotes do t have the alJ due reverence, intention a.nd a weighing of force of authentic com · 1t teaching. motives, but should be determined in the treatment of this section, by objective criteria derived from must be made in the fust Your Eminence's most devoted servant the nature of the person and the In order to confirm uur present of the main points of the [signed] H.J. Card. Cicognani' nature of his acts, which [criteria] point, which is to show that. the which up to this time has Secretariate of State of His Holiness preserve in the context of true love magisterium of the ChuHit, especaallY declared by the Supreme N. 5.8669 the integral meaning of mutual as authori tatively prescn<}d by Paul _,!Fin..-. of the Church, especialJy donation and human procreation; After strong pressures had been VI has not up to the p r~'.: nt taught or mention of ilie Encyclical and this cannot be achieved unless brought to bear on Paul VI both from ad:nitted or even encom.tged the id:a Pius XI which begins with the virtue of conjugal ,chastity is within and from without the Council, cultivated wholeheartedly. Relying that there exists any practical .doubt wetll "Casti connubii," and of the this letter was followed on November the matter of cont r:~ce ptlon , of Pius XU to the midwives; it on these principles, children of the 3 25 by a second Jetter which read: Church are not permitted, in the publish here in fulJ two Jet t~ rs' fr~~ be kept in mind especially that regulation of procreation, to follow the conciliar documentataon whi points of that doctrine must Secretariate of State of His Holiness
162 Linacre QuarterlY 163 The matte rs whi c h were We have introduced these ·tters as ... both at the doctrinal conviction that contraception is communicated in the letter dated the documents useful to ou present and at the pastoraJ and social intrinsically wrong. 24th of tills month [the actual date purpose. First, they show • l rly the •.. This fact ... imposes on Our unshaken conviction of Po Paul at a supplementary study, The papal address almost a year was the 23rd] to His Eminence Alfred later, in September, 1967, to the that time as to the Jbsolute We are resolutely attending to Card. Ottaviani and whlch concern the Redemptorist Fathers a t the chapter •·on fostering the dignity of necessity" of retaining th, :bstance great reverence for all who have of the traditional teaching \\ : respect given it so much attention and conclusion of their General Chapter, marriage and the family" of Schema would seem to confirm our to contraception. Secon ' they but with a sense, nevertheless XJII of the Ecumenical Vatican 1 interpretation of the Pope's mind on throw light on Ule me ru g which Apostolic office ..." s ' Council ll, should be considered as the this matter. In the course of his counsels [ consiliaj of U1e Supreme Pope PauJ himself attach to the conciliar text when he sign. rt. These words, even when first remarks on this occasion, he urged his . Pontiff in this matter of such great audience to " make every effort to ·~ are not the sentiments of a n who is , indicated clearly enough to importance. With regard to the manner experienced reader of Vatican show the close and harmonious ....· of expression, however, they do not in a state of doubt, or whv .nks that the magisterium of the Ch ·h is in a Ulat the Pope was refusing to connection which exists between the contain anything defmitive, and at least some of the more doctrine of the Council and the state of doubt, in these mat s. therefore need not necessarily be rtant conclusions of his doctrine previously proposed by the adopted word for word Paul VI and the Birth Coot· . A rereading of his words ecclesiasticaJ magisterium. Never Jet it The Commission can; therefore, Commission in the light of certain happen that the Christian faithful be from the dossier of the led to another opinion, as if, · in pro pose other formulations aJ so, Not long after the co• 1usion of ••'"""'"•~ which were published accordance with the magisterial which, however, should take account Vatican II , Pope Paul .mpletely authorization the fo llowing teaching of the Council, certain things of these counsels and satisfy the reorganize d th e )ntifical 6 makes it still more evident were now permissible which the desires of His Holiness. These new Commission for the Study Problems the Holy Fa t~e r was refusing to Church previously declared intrinsically formulat ions will be carefully weighed of Family, Population d Birth," 1 7 conclusions which departed ev1. , . " c·tv en t he circumstances of by the Holy Father, and can indeed be commonly referred to a' The Birth approved, if U1ey appear to him to ...-•nllUJY from the traditional this rather solemn admonition, it is Control Commission." named of the Church as to the hard to understand this aUusion as not agree wit}t his mind. sixteen cardinals, archb ops, and 25 November, 1965. immorality of contraception. including the Church's teaching on bishops as its members. - . y became to us to have been saying contraception. the Commission; they ~ :1e had a but very clearly, to the As a result of these two letters the righ t to vote on the fi nu cport. All text of the then current schema was lllnii-;,," : "Thank you for all your The PapaJ Statement of October 29 the others (theologians. -'~ h ysicians. cannot accept your 1966 ' modified and strengthened in some demographers, married t pies, etc.} respects, but not nearly so much as the -""'••1:.. I shall now make further who up to then had cor nuted the The October, 1966, papal statement Pontiff had asked in the first of the Commission became eq , Jlently its letters, to which his four amendments o n birth control is clear in some perit i or expert ad\ . rs. TheY lhould be kept in mind that this were attached. For instance, the respects and obscure in others. As far remained its "members'' <~l y in this aUocution contained Paul VI's ex plicit page reference to Casti as we can see, the foUowing points are limited sense. A large doss· ·containing ic utterance on birth control connubii's condemnatio n of expressed without any ambiguity: the " fina l report" of the: r 'ommissioo the documents of the contraception was added in note I 4. J. "The thought and the norm of itself, together with mass of If after four months' But the phrase "a rt es the Church (on the question of birth documentation from u.~ advisor)' of these documents the anticonceptionales" which he had regulation] are not changed; they are members, was handed 1 , the Pope found himself obliged to insist asked to have inserted inn. 47 (second those in effect in the traditional about the beginning of Jul , 1966. the validity of traditional paragraph , first sentence, along with teaching of the Church." as he did in this address is po lygamy and divorce) as a Four months later, on October 29, 2. Vatican Council JJ has not dealt tantamount to a rejection' of deformation of the dignity of the 1966, after extended per~tJn aJ study of with "the Catholic doctrine on thjs and conclusions to the institution of marriage, was this documentation and conclusions, topic" in such a way "as to change its contained in the documents? reformulated as " illicit practices the Pope declared: "These conclusions substantial terms." \'ery least it must be conceded against generation" and classified with cannot be considered d··finjtjve, by 3. "The norm taught until now by to the time of this 1966 egoism and hedonism as a profanation reason of the fact that they contain the Church, completed by the wise grave impHcations as to other , Ule Pope had found no instructions of Ule Council, calls for of nuptial love in the second part of sufficient to change his own the same sentence. 1 4 questions, by no means few or faithful and generous observance ..."
164 LinacJe QuarterlY 165 4. This norm "is constituted best adduced by Fr. McCorm ec:tsi1re word which is expected of might have on the Church's perennial and most sacred for everybody by tl1e considering the June, 1964 rejection of aU direct contraceptive authority of the Jaw of God, ratl1er to be a teaching statement a steriUzation. 4) Questions about the Amid Obscurity than by Our authority." if now a fortiori, applica' proper formula for reasserting 5. This norm ·•cannot be considered October , 1966 d o t ment. do not pretend to be able to traditional teaching without creating as not birding, as if the magisterium of ( Incidentally, if the Pope d taken why the Pope is not ready to obstacles to legitimate evolution of the Church were now in a state of the opposite position and ad said: decisively. We do not pretend to doctrine in the future. The Pope is doubt ..." 1 8 ''The magisterium of the a complete understanding of the reported to have said to an American It seems to us that this last now in a state of dot he seems to have in mind bishop: " I know what I cannot say; I statement, as it stands. is a clear and studying and reflectin.t he says that the magisterium is do not know what I should say." explicit rejection at least of the problem," would anyone in a state of doubt but is in a state position of those theologians who now the least question as to tl study and reflection. We do not Admittedly these suggestions are justify the practice of contraception character of that statemen to know the precise questions conjectural. But it is conjecture forced by arguing that the magisterium is in a it is (to our mind) inco• which the magisterium is said to be upon us on the one hand by Paul VI's state of doubt on the matter and that context that this pro· mcemenl (The ''certain questions" clear teaching that there exists no probabilism may therefore be invoked could be merely d i plinary. in note 14 of n. 51 of magisterial doubt which justifies the in favor of moral freedom in this Consequently, it sirnph must be et spes have never been practice of contraception, and on the regard. We recognize ttw difficulty of doctrinal - unless one willing to specified in any authentic other by the obvious fact that there explaining with precision the language dismiss the entire aUocu tl• although , either inside or outside the must be a doubt about something, else used , and we are especially aware of published in the Acta, as ,• nteresting as far as we can discover.) But we would have had his "decisive the further difficulties raised when the but otiose monologue l l group of us, these difficulties do not in the word" long since. statement is taken in conjunction with doctors. obscure the plain, practical the subsequent admission that the It is not theologically t of the document as to the Probabilism versus the Magisterium magisterium is in a state of study and our opinion, to set abou1 1terpre1ing to accept and to follow the Fundamentally our position on the reflection. But what is obscure in it this pronouncement by n . mizing its ~""""'doctrine of the Church . question we originally proposed is does not nullify what is clear. To call clear teaching of t practical this: The morality of contraception is may be permissible, however, to the statement mendacious, as Charles obligation to accept and follow the not in a state of practical doubt to surmise on the causes of Davis did, is insulting; to call it a traditional norm, while larging OR because no opinion can be practically meaningless use of language or a those parts of the stat l!nt wbicb and on certain questions which still undergoing study. Perhaps probable if it contradicts the merely verbal denial of Ltle existence give rise, at a more specu' ve level. to include: I) Questions about the authoritative teaching of the of magisterial doubt does not do various doubts and obscu 11!S. magisterium. T o use the theory of ~opllie<>-theolog ical bases of the justice to the text nor to its author. probabilism in such a way that one Admittedly difficult 1 perennially taught, and the concedes practical probability to the That this same document is a is Pope Paul's assert i ~ of the familiar natural-law teaching statement and not one to be magisteriurn of the ChuH to convince many of the opinions of private theologians even when they contradict the teaching of considered merely disciplinary, is clear in a state of doubt, "wh~ of God that contraception is to us for the following reasons. First, state of study and r against His will. 2) Questions the Church goes counter to the very we are mystified when any theologian whatever has been propt .. the prudence as yet of issuing a nature of probabilism and to the very imagines that a pope would attempt to of most attentive cu sideratiOO· and decisive reaffirmation of nature of the magisterium. deal with a problem like contraception Quite clearly he is db .. laiming the teaching at a time when To our mind, probabilism is no by means of canonical legislation existence at least of that i 166 Linacre QuarterlY 167 religious assent as inculcated by Since the conscience of th Church Vatican Council 11,20 and as is so deeply divided on . is issue of the Church's magisterium, sorrow have We learned that authoritatively ·explained to American [artificial contraception] d since have been, it seems to us, unacceptable opmwns are being Catholics in the collective pastoral of the solution is in no way < ntained clearly rejected by the. spread abroad, opinions of some our bishops. 2 1 But the speculative in divine revelat it , the p ter11Jm, speaking through Paul who' neglecting the magisterium of as not being representative of it. difficulties of private theologians authoritative norms which 1e Pope the Church, and relying on false himself, as universal tea, er, will interpretations of the Council, (some of whose difficulties we share) · propose in due time, shaH lOt be a regarding a given point of magisterial do not, of course, identify the i ncautiously accommodate definitive interpretation :· divine magisterium with the present Christian moral doctrines to the moral teaching, or the reasons for it, law , binding u n . ~ r all much less with his personal inclinations and ·perverse opinions · do not deprive that doctrine of its circumstances, but rathe; Jffer an . But we do say that all of this world, as if not the world practical certainty as long as the indispensable and preci s guide 2 4 IP~teJ~ial teaching on contraception were to be conformed to the law of Church continues to .propose it as for the Christian conscien · from the past, or from Christ, but the law of Christ to the authentically hers. · For the reasons II, or from the present Pope, world ... Make every effort to the hierarchy). condemns it as show the close and harmonious given in this article we believe that up Or another: to now (March 1, 1968) the Church lrilllsic~IJly immoral. If there is any connection which exists between authority for contrary the doctrine of the Council and the has proposed and continues to propose The function of the m ~ sterium , for acceptance · and observance her , we are unaware of it. We do doctrine previously proposed hy therefore, does not .usist in prefer our own opinions in all this the ecclesiastical magisterium. traditional teaching that contraception defining ways O ' acting Never let it happen that -the , moral the opinions of respected is intrinsically immoral. Therefore ( " comportements") colleagues. But we prefer Christian faithful be led into matters, unless one is ~ .: aking of there is as yet no room for probabilism teachlm~ of the magisterium, as we another opinion, as if certain things or practical doubt. 2 2 prudential guidance. Foi ,. s proper 1ersta1nd it, to all private opinions, were now permissible, as a result of role, as for the Gospel, j. >provide our own. the magisterial teaching of the For us, the magisterium is no longer those broader clarificat ns which Council, which the Church are needed. But it could lt publish the magisterium unless it has the acute pastoral and personal previously declared intrinsically edicts of such a natur that they evil. Who does not see that from power to decide authoritatively would bind conscience· o precise of the present moment do us unmoved. But we do not this a pernicious moral reliJtivism (whether speaking infallibly or not) ways of acting; that V· 1ld be to questions of practical morality, any solution of these difficulties [emphasis in original] arises, and proceed against that re ~- · ct for life · that the whole and entire including matters not explicitly which is an absolute vah. 25 rather an eventual aggravation - if the faithful are led to patrimony of the doctrine of the " revealed," in such a way as to bind Church is put in jeopardy? And so, It seems to us that opin !.. ns such_as that the private opinions of the consciences of the faithful in their number of theologians, or their if there ever was a time, today most these are opposed to . :1e entJ~e individual lives. For us, the opinions in the guise of a "sensus of all, one must adhere with theological history of tJ i C h~rc~ s magisterium makes its teaching known "can be followed in practice complete fidelity and with docile exercise of her teaching ,' ,thonty ~ through the successors of the apostles, Church continues to teach and humble obedience to the living moral matters, and ar · not Jll magisterium of the Church. 2 7 not through a '"sensus fidelium " which accordance with the t· aching of 'te. It is a moment that is independent . of the magisterial Vatican II.26 And we quo1, them here humility and faith, the teaching of pope and bishops, and still as examples of theological ~;pe culati~ns and faithful observance" 2 3 for by Paul VI on October 29, REFERENCES less through public opinion polls. which are .of no relevan c~ 111 a pplyt~g And in the allocution to the We hear the voice of Christ in humility the principles of probat'.iism or _ ~ 1 mptorist Fathers mentioned G. Perico, S.J. ("La •super-pillola,' " and faith when the Church speaks arriving at a state o; p~acttca the Pope reiterated in a striking CiviltA . cattloica 118 [1967] 263-68) authoritatively, either through the probability in a matter on which the attempts to show that the morality of the Church has spoken and continues to call for humility and fidelity contraceptive use of the pill is essentially voice of the bishops speaking as such lation to the Church's different from that of using contraceptives and in union with the pope, or speak authoritatively to the contrary. We believe the same thing s ho_ul~ b~ 11te:nwm in moral matters. On that "properly so called." He arrives at this through the pope alone when he .conclusion by constructing a def'mi tion of said of the opinions of the " maJOfl~Y (September, 1967), in the "contraception properly so called" which teaches the whole Church. in the alleged final report of the buth of perfecting moral theology includes only direct. (i.e., physically direct control Commission. Whatever valu~ IIC(Jir 168 Linacre QuarterlY 169 h~ concludes th3:t "it is certain that [the Concerning this publication L '( ;ervatore pastor~ practi~ which does not impose on pills] cannot be classified. among Romano (Nov. 2-3, 1967, p. 1) 1 rried the the f~Ithful stricter standards of conjugal contraceptives properly so called." This following notice: "Bernard Cardi 1 Alfrink, m_orality than those proposed publicly argumentation is unsatisfactory. First, its archbishop of Utrecht, dev 'res the With~ut !ebuke, by theologians in good description of the physiological action of publication in English of · ·1 e 'new standmg m_ the Church, We do not believe the pill is highly questionable; but this point catechism' which has been c · .Jed out however, giVen the circumstances in which we leave to the judgment of our medical without his responsibility a· before the Chu~ch now finds herself, that at the colleagues. Second, it adopts a definition of eventual modifications of the te:-, :.m which present time (March 1, 1968) the silence. of contraception which excludes the pill a the work has not yet been conci· · ed, could the Holy See has continued long enough to priori, taking little account of the fact that be approved. Moreover, the En ~:', t1 edition, war~~t. ~y ge~eral presumption of a sort throughout theological history 'A New Catechism - Catholi •: t:aith for of mvmctble Ignorance" or "good faith" contraceptive sterilization has always been Adults;' does not· have the ap}' 1 ·al of the on the part of the whole Catholic public repudiated by Church and theologians archbishop of Utrecht, and as 170 Linacre QuarterlY '1968 171