Letter to Pope Paul VI (1969) Card. Karol Wojtyła Translated by
LifeSiteNews Vatican correspondent Diane Montagna
Most Holy Father,
With this letter, I again wish to thank Your Holiness for the
encyclical
Humanae vitae, whose promulgation in July 1968
concluded a period dedicated to the in-depth study of the theme of
the transmission of life in marriage, in light of the principles of
Christian morality. During this period, the Church, according to the
instructions expressed by her Supreme Master and Shepherd, has been
careful not to question this ethical principle, and has continued to
proclaim it in this matter. She has also endeavored to gain a deeper
understanding of its meaning, raison d'être and possibilities of
application in the face of the current state of human science,
particularly in the fields of contemporary physiology, psychology and
demography. The moral doctrine of the encyclical
Humanae vitae
was accepted, after its publication, by all the Christian faithful
and especially by the Catholic episcopate with great conviction and
profound gratitude. Yet, in some areas, the formulation of a clear
doctrine in this very important area of human morality has come up
against already existing doubts about the principle itself, as well
as some different practices present in conjugal life and in pastoral
life. There are theologians, including some often quoted by the
Church, who still today make themselves the spokesmen of these
doubts. Advertising and the means of social communication amplify
their circulation and sow confusion in pastoral ministry. Such
disorientation creeps in both among the laity — particularly in
some circles — and among the priests who are pastors of souls and
confessors, despite clear statements by the Holy See and local
bishops on this matter. The confusion regards not only the correct
discernment of the moral norms contained in the encyclical
Humanae
vitae and of their binding character, but also the whole of the
Christian life. In fact, challenging the moral doctrine of the Church
in a field as important as that dealt with by the encyclical can be
an occasion that gives rise to a much broader process of challenging
other elements of the Christian faith and practices. Therefore, even
in societies where faith and moral conscience are such that the Holy
Father’s directives are willingly accepted, great difficulties
arise due to interpretations of the encyclical
Humanae vitae
that differ from those of the Pope. Thanks to means of social
communication, people from every corner of the world receive
information immediately. In particular, statements of some
episcopates are used, which are considered different from the
teaching of the encyclical, especially with regard to practical
solutions. In this situation, it seems to be absolutely necessary
that the Holy See contemplate a series of provisions aimed at helping
priests and the laity to resolve these difficulties. One could
consider drafting a very detailed instruction to priests engaged in
ministry — especially confessors, catechists and preachers. This
instruction, moreover, should contain very precise positions
regarding several theological formulations, especially
theological-moral ones, whose tenor is in clear disagreement with the
teaching of Christ transmitted by the Church. In doing so, one could
clarify the Church’s position with respect to certain theological
opinions, whose authors — and their followers — believe that the
absence of such a clarification confirms their theses. In particular,
it would be necessary to clarify the issue of the obligation and
infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the Popes, and to point
out the dependence of the Catholic theologian on the authority of the
magisterium of the Church. In this context, I would like to enclose
with this letter several more detailed proposals aimed at giving
structure to the content of the Pastoral Instruction in question.
These proposals were drawn up by the group of theologians and priests
in Krakow who, before the publication of the encyclical
Humanae
vitae, had already prepared a long memorandum on the problems the
encyclical would have to address. I sent this memorandum to the Holy
See in February 1968. At present, the same group of theologians and
priests — including one of the auxiliary bishops of Krakow — has
prepared the proposals that I am submitting to Your Holiness. These
proposals represent only a general schema. They do not constitute the
actual text of the instruction, but indicate the issues that, in our
humble opinion, should be addressed.
I The first part of the instruction should contain the statements
of Bishops and Episcopates published on the occasion of the
encyclical
Humanae vitae. This is an immense amount of
material, so we need to find the best way to publish it, if we do so
in the Instruction in question. Publishing the episcopal statements
along with the proposed instruction would show the close link between
the teaching of the Holy Father in the encyclical and the teaching of
the college of Bishops, which is the same. After the Second Vatican
Council, proof of collegiality has acquired unprecedented positive
value. In the context of the statements made, it is necessary to
highlight some of them which, compared to the whole, involve a number
of differences. These include the following (according to the
documentation in our possession):
1. Nordic and Scandinavian countries, Pastoral Letter of the
Bishops of the Countries of Northern Europe, in the encyclical
“Humanae vitae” of Pope Paul VI, 10/10/1968;
2. Federal Republic of Germany, Wort der deutschen Bischöfe zur
seelsorgischen Lage nach dem Erscheinen der Enzyklika “Humanae
vitae,” dated 8/30/1968
3. France, Note pastorale de l’Episcopat français sur
l’encyclique “Humanae vitae,” November 1968
4. Belgium, Déclaration de l’Episcopat belge sur l’Encyclique
“Humanae vitae,” 8/30/1968
5. Canada, Déclaration des Evêques canadiens sur l’Encyclique
“Humanae vitae” dated 9/27/1968
6. Luxembourg, Bischofswort zum Familiensonntag über die
Enzyklika “Humanae vitae” dated 6/1/1969.
In principle, these statements accept the authority of the
teaching power of the Pope as well as the entire content of his
encyclical. At the same time, however, they seek to take into account
the reactions of the laity and priests, that the demands of Christian
morality formulated in the encyclical
Humanae vitae are
“concerning.” This attitude certainly comes from an authentically
pastoral anxiety. It is also the manifestation of a psychology of
dialogue, which makes us attentive to the thoughts and objections of
our interlocutors and urges us to follow them to the limit of what is
possible. On the other hand, the situation in recent years, in which
the pastoral practice of some regions considered contraception
morally acceptable, undoubtedly exerts its influence. We therefore
understand the origin of the “concern” or even “surprise”
caused by the demands of conjugal morality recalled in the encyclical
Humanae vitae. The authors of the aforementioned statements
have made themselves the spokesmen for this concern. The reason for
these statements is to be found, in most cases, in the concern
deriving from the comparison between the moral conscience of the
laity and priests and the real demands of Christian morality dealt
with in the encyclical. One can observe that the Authors of these
documents intend, on the one hand, to maintain the submission of the
faithful to the teaching of the Pope, and on the other, to safeguard
at all costs the union of the faithful with the Church, seeking to
understand their situation and to apply the principles of Christian
morality in such a way as to soothe their consciences without,
however, having to change the behavior maintained up to now. The
instruction we are proposing cannot, of course, keep silent about the
difficulties of the problem. In this regard, the statements of the
episcopates cited are a help, as they will allow the Instruction to
examine in detail the very heart of these difficulties, whether
doctrinal, pastoral or simply moral, although one should not concern
oneself only with the difficulties or give them first place: the
magisterial character of the encyclical
Humanae vitae and of
the teaching of the Pope undoubtedly indicate this path. (We wish to
emphasize the importance not only of extraordinary teaching but also
of the ordinary teaching of the Popes). On the other hand, the
reaction of “surprise” and “concern” triggered by the appeal
to principles of conjugal morality in the encyclical is far from
being the general one. It was, in fact, the reaction only in some
circles. Probably, it was able to conceal from the eyes of these
Episcopates the reaction of other circles, other groups of laity and
priests. These were precisely the groups and circles that welcomed
Paul VI’s encyclical as the logical expression of Gospel morality,
which is naturally very demanding, but which, at the same time, is
authentically Christian and authentically human. Many groups have
expressed their deep gratitude to the Pope for the teaching contained
in the encyclical Humanae vitae. In these circumstances, we wish to
reiterate forcefully that the moral law is founded not on the
approval or disapproval of men, groups or human circles, but rather
on the objective nature of moral good and evil. In the light of this
conviction, we are now making the following proposals.
II The second part of the instruction should contain the doctrine
of the Second Vatican Council which, following the First Vatican
Council, once again defines the principles of infallibility. It would
be necessary simply to cite the Constitution
Lumen gentium III
25, which states that “This religious submission of mind and will
must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the
Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it
must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is
acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely
adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and
will in the matter may be known either from the character of the
documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from
his manner of speaking.” There is also another reason that urges us
to take up these texts of Vatican II: the statements of the
episcopates in question also refer to this principle (and to the same
texts), declaring that they adhere to the encyclical
Humanae vitae
in a spirit of faith, as it is due to the teaching of the Pope. The
encyclical
Humanae vitae is not a solemn document of ex
cathedra teaching; therefore it does not contain any dogmatic
definition. However, since it is a document of the ordinary teaching
of the Pope, it has an infallible and irrevocable character. Such a
character, in fact, is specifically inherent not only to ex cathedra
dogmatic definitions, but also to the acts of the ordinary teaching
of the Church (see the quoted passage from
Lumen gentium, III
25). As for the encyclical
Humanae vitae, its content does not
give rise to any doubts about the matter. The Holy Father affirms
that the Church’s teaching on the regulation of births does nothing
but “promulgate divine law” (
Humanae vitae, n. 20).
Addressing himself to spouses, the Pope speaks in the name of the
Church, which proclaims “the imprescriptible demands of divine law”
(HV, n. 25). While inviting priests and moral theologians to adhere
unanimously in a spirit of faith to the teaching of the Popes
regarding the ethics of married life, the Pontiff affirms that it is
a matter of the “saving doctrine of Christ.” (HV, 29). Moreover,
he also speaks of the laws inscribed by God in human nature, so as to
ensure that spouses conform “what they do to the will of God the
Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will
clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.” An
act of mutual love carried out at the expense of the power to
transmit life “contradicts both the divine plan, which constitutes
the norm of marriage, and the will of the Author of human life [...]
and [...] is in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.”
Since he speaks in the name of the Church, the Pope is aware that he
is “proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both
natural and evangelical. Since the Church did not make either of
these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and
interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what
is in fact unlawful […].” This moral law applied to marriage is
imprescriptible. These statements, which present the Pope’s
intention in a very clear and incisive way, show that it is
impossible to think that the conjugal morality contained in the
encyclical
Humanae vitae could be revoked, i.e. considered
fallible. One cannot even think of accepting the opinion of those who
see in the encyclical
Humanae vitae only pastoral advice and
directives — which would correspond to the educational role of the
Church — and even less the opinion of those who want to see in the
encyclical only an invitation to open up a debate on the issue of
marital life and ethics (the encyclical would open a dialogue in
which participants would be, in the name of collegiality, the bishops
and the Pope). These views are at odds with the clear and distinctive
character of the document. Moreover, they are also harmful, since
they imply that because of the revocable and therefore fallible
character of the encyclical
Humanae vitae, everyone could,
depending on the circumstances, form a different opinion, which would
be for him the norm of his own actions. It cannot be tolerated that,
after the encyclical
Humanae vitae, there is a state of
uncertainty; in particular, it is not acceptable to affirm that this
state of uncertainty is reinforced by the attitude of the Pope
himself, since an impartial analysis of the text of
Humanae vitae
demonstrates the exact opposite. In light of this analysis of the
content of the encyclical
Humanae vitae, we need to look more
deeply at the opinions of those theologians who, in the teaching of
the encyclical on conjugal morality — especially on the
inadmissibility of contraception — see a revocable and,
consequently, fallible teaching. In the eyes of these theologians,
only solemn teaching ex cathedra is infallible and irrevocable. The
result is such a restriction of the magisterium in the sphere of
moral problems as to make it irrelevant, given that extraordinary
teaching (ex cathedra) in this type of issue has been used only in
very rare cases. It should be noted that these theologians, in their
opinions, restrict the competence of the Church’s magisterium in
moral questions since they believe that, in the field of morality,
judgements are by their very nature unstable and depend on the
historically changeable character of human nature itself. They are
convinced, moreover, that within the ambit of natural law, the
Church’s magisterium cannot issue coercive and definitive
decisions, since it is a merely rational sphere of knowledge of man
and the condition of his life. They have also called into question
the competence of the Church’s magisterium as it would not have
been able to see the link between particular norms of Catholic moral
doctrine and Revelation. They have therefore challenged certain moral
principles taught by the magisterium, justifying this attitude by the
fact that these principles are not explicitly found in Sacred
Scripture. It would be useful to recall here the general principles
enshrined in the First Synod of Bishops of 1967, which define the
tasks of theologians in the Church and, in particular, their attitude
towards the Magisterium and pastoral ministry.
III The third part should deal with conscience and its
relationship to the moral law. Conscience is the decisive and binding
norm of human activity: it is binding, since man must act according
to his own conscience, and it is decisive, since it constitutes the
ultimate and direct element that guides human action. Nevertheless,
while fully accepting the normative character of conscience, one
cannot see in it the one and only norm, let alone a norm superior to
the moral law. Attributing to conscience an autonomy that would give
it not only a normative but also a legislative role, would be
contrary to the foundations of both natural and revealed ethics. Such
autonomy would be tantamount to accepting subjectivism and relativism
in morality. Now, subjectivism and relativism are in contradiction
with true morality, especially with Christian morality, simply
because these amount to the denial of objective moral good and evil
and, consequently, of the specific function of conscience. It is, in
fact, up to conscience to determine good and evil and to discern it
according to the objective moral law. The whole doctrinal tradition
of the Church recognizes that the objective moral law is found in
Revelation. It also recognizes that Revelation (particularly the
Letter to the Romans, 2) affirms the existence of the natural moral
law. This affirmation is of great importance for faith and theology,
regardless of the different philosophical conceptions of natural law.
When the Church, in her teaching of morals, refers to the natural
law, she does not allude to any of these philosophical conceptions,
but sees the natural law as an object of faith and theology. She
regards it to be the foundation of the morality which, in turn, has
been explicitly revealed. The specific norms of the moral law are
accessible to human reason, which recognizes and accepts them as the
foundation of morality. The Church considers herself to be the
guardian and teacher of these norms, for, although they were not the
object of a special revelation, Revelation nevertheless confirms
their existence and their binding force. The essence of the Church’s
teaching on natural law consists in emphasizing that there is an
objective moral order, which derives from the nature of man, a
universal and immutable order, guaranteed by the Supreme Legislator
and, consequently, independent of the State and its power. Together
with revealed law, this moral order represents the constitutive whole
of morality. It falls within the competence of the Church: in fact,
its observance is a condition for salvation. This is precisely why
Paul VI defines the teaching of the encyclical
Humanae vitae
as the expression of objective moral truth that no one, not even the
Church, can change. The efforts of theologians to provide a new
interpretation, or a better (more modern) expression of the issue of
natural law, cannot be carried out at the expense of its basic
principles, which are founded on Scripture, Tradition and the
Magisterium. Thanks to these sources, we know with the same certainty
conscience derives its normative force — which is binding and
decisive — from objective morality. This law is divine. And if it
were human, it would be rooted in a divine law or formally revealed,
or contained in natural law. It is precisely this law that Paul VI
recalls and explains in the encyclical
Humanae Vitae. That
said, one cannot consider as morally good the attitude of a Catholic
who, fully aware of the moral doctrine of the Church, acts according
to the subjective judgment of his own conscience and opposes the
norms he well knows. This is the focal point on which the statements
of some episcopates fix all their attention, as they try to show
maximum indulgence towards the various processes of consciences in
this difficult and painful field of human morals. However, the
possibility of profoundly erroneous states of consciences cannot be
excluded. A distinction must be made between the acceptance of the
possibility of such a state of conscience and the acceptance of the
subjective right of a Catholic to create such a state, or to form a
specific judgment about conscience that would be in disagreement with
the objective moral law, invariably taught in the Church through the
voice of the Supreme Magisterium. The encyclical
Humanae vitae
highlights precisely what, in the field of the transmission of life,
is a stable law of morality taught by the Church. It concerns
responsible parenthood and the ban on contraception. All the
circumstances that enable science, culture and technology to develop
today allow us to understand anew what is immutable in the divine
moral law, without this immutable [law] being changed. Consequently,
we must also remember the principles that moral theology uses to
describe the way in which a sure and upright conscience is formed. It
is achieved by knowing the moral value of an act. Conscience, as
such, demands that one refrain from performing an act if, a correct
discernment of its moral value has not previously been made. This
moral obligation also allows us to clarify the scope and direction of
the duties of priests and confessors in this area. They have a duty
to teach the moral law in order to make it possible to formulate true
judgments of conscience. The formation of consciences is one of the
fundamental tasks of the priestly ministry.
IV The fourth part of the Instruction that we propose should,
following the encyclical
Humanae vitae, set out the doctrine
on marriage, particularly some of its aspects, in order to present a
correct and clear perspective on the theme of marital love. This is
certainly the crucial ethical issue that plays a fundamental role in
the formation of consciences. Following the constitution
Gaudium
et Spes and the encyclical
Humanae vitae, it is necessary
to remember the religious character of every marriage contract. It is
a union of divine institution which occupies a very precise place in
God’s creative and saving plan. It is necessary to insist on the
fact that marriage is a vocation, that is, a mission that the persons
in question receive directly from God. These are the fundamental
aspects of a theology of marriage, which introduce it into the sphere
of faith and the vital relationship between man and God. We must also
put the fundamental elements of married life in order. Marriage,
indeed, is a community of persons based on love. Yet we cannot
conceive of this community of love in this way, if procreation and
the educational mission that follows from it are treated in a
secondary way. From this point of view, the teaching of the
encyclical
Humanae vitae on conjugal love leaves no room for
doubt. Spouses are called to participate, through their eternal and
fruitful love in God’s creative and saving plan. The Author of the
encyclical intended to address all marital communities, expanding
this perspective beyond Christian marriage. It is useful to look at
the value of sexual relations — without forgetting their moral
value — from the point of view of the dignity of persons, by
considering that one is dealing with a real interpersonal
relationship that is realized in them, and by underlining the duties
that come from this type of relations. This is precisely the reason
why one cannot pass over in silence the aspect of fecundity, which is
inherent to sexual relations and closely linked to their
interpersonal relational character. In a certain way, the aspect of
fecundity opens interpersonal relations between man and woman to a
participation in the creative work of God, according to His eternal
designs. Similarly, we must insist on conjugal harmony, which is of
great importance as proof of love and of the community of persons.
However, it cannot be presented as if it were, as such, a moral good
and a fundamental and directing modality of responding to God’s
call in marriage, regardless of the way in which it is understood,
and of the means that, in the opinion of many, ought to lead to it.
Moreover, it often happens that this harmony is conceived in such a
way that only the sexual union of the spouses constitutes its source,
as if there were no other possibility for the love of the spouses to
be expressed and grow, except through sexual acts. From this
perspective, sexual continence would be a danger to conjugal love and
its harmony. However, we can easily observe that at the basis of
these opinions lies an inaccurate vision of man, which is clearly
alien to the Gospel, and to the Christian tradition and experience in
this regard. What, in reality, actually threatens the marriage
community is certainly not a mature and conscious continence (for
example, periodic continence), but rather the absence of
psycho-sexual and moral maturity, which makes this continence
impossible. This lack of maturity means that spouses do not see
continence as an expression of love for their spouse (especially in
certain circumstances) and as a renunciation and a sacrifice, which
is a condition sine qua non of love, of its endurance and its growth.
It is therefore up to the master of morals and teacher, who is the
Church — and, in the Church, the supreme authority of the Pope —
to grasp and highlight the boundaries that, in the sphere of sexual
values, make one pass from the act worthily lived, to use and abuse.
This is precisely the danger that threatens the values themselves,
which — given the close bond between sexuality and the human person
— hold a special subtlety and need an authentic sublimation. In any
case, the opinion that contraception is indispensable for the
stability and the love of the spouses is a crude opinion, and is
irreconcilable with a Christian vision of man. This vision accords
more weight to the value of man and the essential values of his body
and sexuality than to its possibilities in this area. This vision of
man and the certainties that derive from it, as far as the real scale
of his value and his possibilities is concerned, is — as the text
of the encyclical
Humanae vitae clearly shows — the
foundation of the cardinal norms of conjugal morality taught by the
Church (and more broadly of sexual morality). A moral norm, in fact,
like any other law, can impose only those duties whose fulfillment is
possible for the man to whom the norm is addressed. In this case, it
is a rule of divine law: this means that the legislator possesses not
only a particular knowledge of good and evil, but also a very
profound knowledge of the man whom he subjects to this rule. The
Supreme Lawmaker knows man’s possibilities in this matter. Yet this
does not in any way mean that the rule of divine law, recalled (and
once again clarified) by the encyclical
Humanae vitae, can be
fulfilled without difficulty, without suffering and without adequate
effort. This suffering, which preludes the fulfillment of the divine
law, is — we see it above all in the light of the Gospel — an
inseparable part of the Christian life. In the same spirit (that is,
in the light of the Gospel) it is she who bears witness to love and
who helps to strengthen it. Opposed to these premises, which are
essential premises of Christian faith and morality, is the principle
according to which what is difficult and painful cannot constitute a
moral duty and cannot bind in conscience. Starting from this
principle, it is maintained that the obligation to preserve conjugal
unity and harmony does not include the control of conjugal life and
periodic continence. Supporters of these opinions perceive and
highlight in the Church’s teaching as recalled by the encyclical
Humanae vitae, a case which they define as a “conflict of
duties.” In their opinion, there is a conflict between the demands
of responsible parenthood which requires, in certain circumstances,
that spouses refrain from marital relations, and the duty to maintain
conjugal harmony through the practice of such relations. Furthermore,
they are convinced that this second duty is linked to a more
important and more fundamental marital good. While it cannot be
denied that the maintenance of the marriage bond and unity is a
fundamental good for any marital community, it is equally true that
it cannot be accepted — for the reasons mentioned above — that
this unity and this bond be established by virtue of the mere fact of
not controlling the marital relations between the spouses, to whom an
unlimited freedom should be given. We have described the reason why
such an opinion is false and unacceptable from the Christian
perspective of man, his value and his possibilities. Therefore, the
suggested “conflict of duties” is only an apparent conflict.
Essentially, we are faced with elementary psychological difficulties
and tension between, on the one hand, weaknesses or temptation and,
on the other, the demands of divine law. This tension cannot be
called a “conflict of duties,” since what characterizes it is the
awareness of the effort that accompanies the fulfillment of the duty.
Any misinterpretation of the facts in the moral sphere or any
confusion of level must scrupulously be avoided. It is necessary, in
fact, to distinguish the true conflict of moral duties from the
psychological effort linked to the observance of the established
moral order or its fulfillment. The encyclical
Humanae vitae,
like the traditional teaching and practice of Christian morality,
does not conceal or diminish this effort. On the contrary, in showing
it, it highlights the values connected to it. It is up to Christian
ethics to clarify both the value of the union of persons in the
community of married life, both of parenthood and of responsible
parenthood in particular. Within the framework of these values, which
depend on one another, Christian ethics perceives an ordered plan
that men must carry out, and not a fundamental conflict that would
manifest itself in the conflict of moral duties. On the other hand,
the importance of the values in question — values that constitute
for man a task to be carried out throughout his life within the
framework of this plan — enshrines the importance of the norms of
Christian morality. Consequently, the person who transgresses these
norms will experience in conscience a sense of guilt proportional to
the transgression. The tradition of Christian morality is right to
recognize here, in principle, a grave matter. There is no objective
reason for interpreting it as a matter of minor importance. In each
of these cases, one can and must take into consideration the
circumstances — even the merely subjective ones — but one cannot
accept that a grave sin objectively becomes a venial sin, or simply
an “imperfection.” The quality of values, in this field, should
serve as a basis for measuring, i.e. determining, the severity of
transgressions. A correct measure — neither too low nor too high—
is an indispensable coefficient for the whole doctrine of conjugal
love, as well as the basis for a true formation of consciences in
this area.
V The fifth part of the proposed Instruction (and certainly the
last one) should be dedicated to the analysis of the sacramental
aspect of the issue. First of all, it is a question of clearly
defining the meaning of the sacrament of marriage. It is not enough
to observe, in general terms, that this sacrament establishes a
certain bond with Jesus Christ and, by virtue of this, imposes on the
spouses the duty of mutual fidelity. It is also necessary — as the
encyclical
Humanae vitae and the Constitution
Gaudium et
Spes do — to show that marriage is a sacrament which, by its
very vocation, is at the origin of the integral response to God’s
creative and saving plan. The Sacrament of Marriage makes it possible
to give this response and, at the same time, makes it possible for
this response to be given in the context of the morality mentioned
above — morality that makes conjugal love understood and fulfilled
according to the established order. In the life of the Church and in
the life of every Christian, the sacrament of marriage forms the
basis of the values of which we have just spoken, as well as the
possibility of fulfilling them according to a truly evangelical plan.
This means that the spouses must make the effort we have described
above, whose texture is made up of the fundamental set of duties
imposed by the lay apostolate. Of course, this also requires a
proportional effort on the part of priests involved in ministry, that
takes the form of the regular administration of the sacraments of
Penance and the Eucharist. The Holy Father therefore sets forth this
effort in the encyclical
Humanae vitae. While inviting the
spouses to have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, he draws their
attention to the need to make an equivalent moral effort, which
consists in overcoming their weaknesses and getting up again after
falls and false steps. The Pope’s teaching associates the Sacrament
of Penance with the practice of the virtue of penance, conversion and
aversion to sin in the Sacrament of Penance. Paul VI insists very
much on the penitential and, at the same time, medicinal character of
the sacraments. To confessors, he advises indulgence and love towards
penitents, while asking them to highlight well what constitutes sin,
and to demand, consequently, its rejection. It goes without saying
that indulgence and love for penitents also require that priests
really make them aware of the ethical methods to be used for the
regulation of births and that they facilitate their practice. On the
other hand, this indulgence and love recommended by the Holy Father
cannot be understood as an attitude which risks undermining the very
value of conversion in the Sacrament of Penance, and the conditions
necessary for receiving this sacrament correctly, or which risks
calling into question the need to receive information about the
Church’s authentic teaching on conjugal morality. While, therefore,
it is absolutely right to demand that penitents be treated with all
the respect due to the dignity of their person, contemplating the
possibility of a progressive conversion, it is also necessary — not
with regard to these postulates, but in order to carry them out —
to speak without delay about the dispositions needed to correct one’s
behavior, that is, to break with sin and with the occasions that
inevitably lead to it. One of the particular conditions for this
conversion to the tribunal of penance is full adherence to the
ethical norms taught by the Church — and, subsequently, a
willingness to make all necessary efforts to put these norms into
practice — a willingness to continually renew one’s efforts,
should fidelity to these moral norms not be crowned with success.
Moreover, since it sometimes happens that penitents are in good
faith, this principle of respect for their dignity cannot be applied
indifferently, in the case of good faith or in the case of those who
fail to accept certain aspects of the moral law contained in the
encyclical
Humanae vitae. In other words, the confessor cannot
give free rein to these questions, but must examine, explain, advise,
demand (or ensure that the penitent himself takes such measures). As
for the penitent, he must be ready to ask forgiveness, to ask for
advice and to take the required measures. In short, it is a matter of
adopting exactly the attitude that the Gospel clearly presents before
our eyes. Pastoral care cannot seek other solutions, and theology,
especially moral theology, cannot lead to such deviations. However,
moral theology and pastoral theology and, subsequently, pastoral
ministry, can and must seek solutions that — while identifying with
Gospel attitudes and deepening them — also draw nourishment from
the riches of modern science and knowledge that are closely linked to
the problems of responsible parenthood. The encyclical
Humanae
vitae reiterates this concept several times. Moral theology, as
well as pastoral ministry, must be very sensitive to the line of
demarcation that separates ethics from technology. After all, it is
not technology but ethics that is able to solve human problems. As
for the Eucharist, the apex par excellence of the Christian life, it
is certainly a vital source of mutual love for the spouses.
Therefore, in principle, it is reasonable not to alienate —
especially lightly — spouses who have difficulty in carrying out
the duties of responsible parenthood, although true anxieties of
conscience should not be underestimated and one should not insist on
proposing the Eucharist in cases where the conscience of the spouses
leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, it is
categorically prohibited to recommend Holy Communion without prior
confession to spouses who use contraceptive means in the context of
their marriage. In this case, the principle of St. Paul —
probet
autem seipsum homo [Let a man examine himself] (1 Cor. 11:28) —
is absolutely required. To want to level out the limits between good
and evil in favor of reception of the Eucharist is a very dangerous
attitude, since it exposes the faithful to the danger of a fruitless,
even sacrilegious, reception of the sacraments. The important thing
is that the Eucharist be, in a moral sense, a source of authentic
sanctification.
Cf.
Hierarchical immorality resulting from the categorical rejection of the divine moral law, and what must be done to correct it, e.g. the McCarrick case.
Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley at the Vatican in 2013. (Max Rossi/Reuters)
_Painting_by_Philippe_-_(MeisterDrucke-1002935).jpg)
