Editor

Kenneth Baker, S.J.

PublisherCatholic Polls, Inc.

Contributing editorJoseph J. FarraherGeneral managerBernard Belson

Circulation managerMarie Claire Nelson

Advertising managerElizabeth SchmitzHomiletic & Pastoral Review isowned and published byCatholic Polls, Inc., 86 RiversideDr., New York, N.Y. 10024.Editor, Kenneth Baker.Telephone: (212) 799-2600. HPRappears monthly, except bimonthly for August-September,and is available on Microfilmthrough Xerox UniversityMicrofilms, Inc., 300 NorthZeeb Rd., Ann Arbor, Mich.48106. Second class postagefor at New York, N.Y. and atadditional offices. © CatholicPolls, Inc. 1979.Address all correspondence toKenneth Baker, S.J.,86 Riverside Drive,New York, N.Y. 10024.Rates: U.S. and Possessions —$13.00 per year; $23 for two years.For foreign postage, add $3.00 peryear. Single copies available at $1.50per copy postpaid.Foreign currency accepted.Postmaster. Send Form 3579 toHPR, 86 Riverside Drive, New York,N.Y. 10024.

paid

Publication No. USPS 889-740ISSN No. 0018-4268

Volume LXXX, No. 2

November 1979

NOVEMBER 1979

homileticpastoralmmew

NOVEMBER 1979

2 Worth noting

4 Letters from our readers

11 Charity and dissenting theologiansBy Germain GrisezA bishop teaches what he allows to be taught.

22 A search for lost sheepBy Thomas C. DonlanThey wander in the mire of Times Square.

27 Inerrancy of the BibleBy Edith BlackCan God's acts be sensibly perceived?

33 Homilies on the liturgy of the Sundays and feastsBy Daniel D. Donovan

50 Occasional homily — The priest belongs toChrist

By Michael L. Novacki

58 St. John the Baptist: Model of serviceBy Stanley SmolenskiWhat was his role in our salvation?

64 The Old Testament and political theoryBy James V. SchallPoliticians ignore the power of religion.

73 Questions answered, by Joseph J. Farraher

77 Book reviews

80 New norms for Pontifical Universities

— Editorial

1

A bishop teaches what he authorizes others to teach,and the Church in practice teaches what thebishops knowingly permit to be taught with their authority.

Charity anddissenting theologians

By Germain Grisez

• The Archdiocese of Washingtonsponsored a workshop on Principles ofCatholic Moral Life at the Catholic

University of America, June 17-21,1979. The purpose of the workshopwas to answer challenges to Catholicmoral thinking for the benefit of pastors and teachers who must struggleconstantly with the impact of recentdevelopments upon the faithful.

Fifteen scholars from Europe andAmerica gave papers. Among the Europeans were Fr. Louis Bouyer of theOratory from Paris and Dr. John M.Finnis from Oxford University. Amongthe Americans were Fr. William Smith

of the seminary of the Archdiocese ofNew York, Fr. Donald McCarthy ofthe seminary of the Archdiocese ofCincinnati, Dr. William E. May andFr. Ronald Lawler, O.F.M.Cap., ofthe Catholic University of America,

NOVEMBER 1979

and Prof. Frederick S. Carney, a leading Protestant moralist at SouthernMethodist University.

The well-known group of theologians who dissent from Catholic moralteaching was not represented on theprogram. Since their views have dominated the media — not only the popular but also the professional theologicalmedia — during the past decade, ithardly seemed necessary to include yetanother statement of the opinionswhich the workshop was intended toanswer.

Cardinal William Baum, Archbishopof Washington, gave the opening address on the "Distinctiveness of Chris

tian Morality." This address was primarily an affirmation of theindissoluble bond in Christian moralitybetween natural law and man's supernatural vocation. The Cardinal stressed

11

the centering of morality upon Christand the Eucharist. Against dissentersfrom the teaching of the magisterium(especially in sexual morality), CardinalBaum affirmed that it is sacra-

mentalism, not "physicalism," whichthe Church teaches. He also insisted on

a point which the Vatican declarationPersona Humana made against so-called **fundamental-option theory'':Mortal sin "is to be found in the opposition to authentic love which is included in every deliberate transgression, in serious matter, of each ofthe moral laws. ..."

Moral principles defended

Speaker after speaker in the workshop took his cue from Cardinal Baumin articulating the Church's teaching —often with fresh insights pointing toward possible areas of authentic development — and at the same time in criticizing various aspects of the moraltheology of the dissenters. Taken together, the papers presented in theworkshop made up an impressive defense of Catholic moral principlesagainst questionable recent developments. It is hoped that a volume including all of the papers will be published soon.

My own contribution to the workshop was a paper on consequentialismand Christian morality. My presentation elicited a reaction which I will discuss in the remainder of this article,and so I briefly summarize what I said.

Consequentialism is the theory thatthe end justifies the means, that onemay do evil to achieve good when theproportion between good and evil is"right." I criticized this theory as ultimately unintelligible and explained its

12

continuing appeal by its service as amethod of rationalization. Most of thetheologians who dissent from receivedCatholic moral teaching have adoptedconsequentialism, despite the fact thateven most secular philosophers agreethat there are many important objections against this approach which havenever been answered.

I argued that there is a good deal ofroom for licit theological dissent provided that one dissents from a particular point of the Church's teaching —one not proposed as definitive — onthe basis of principles and a methodwhich are themselves drawn from faithand consonant with all of the centralteachings of faith. But consequentialism contradicts a point of Catholicteaching which belongs to Christianfaith, for Christians always have rejected the view that evil may be doneto achieve good (cf. Rom. 3:8), and always have held that some acts — including apostasy, adultery, and killingthe innocent — may never be done regardless of consequences.

Bishops should speak out

It follows, I argued, that the theologians who have adopted consequentialism are subjecting theChurch's faith and moral teaching tocriticism by an extrinsic principle whichis incompatible with Christian faith. Ifthis conclusion is true, it seems to methat a practical conclusion follows: Thebishops ought not to condone this dissent, and should make clear that theologians and teachers who adopt consequentialism teach and speak withoutauthorization from the bishops, andtherefore not as Catholic theologiansand teachers. It is unacceptable that a

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW

position which is incompatible withChristian faith be regarded as if it werea legitimate theological opinion.

Not surprisingly, my remarks eliciteda negative reaction from a few personspresent. The negative reaction was notfrom Cardinal Baum nor any otherbishop present, nor did it seem to beshared by many of the priests andteachers who had come to the workshop hoping for help in their strugglewith the impact of theological dissentupon the faithful. Rather, the negativereaction mainly was from a few persons who perhaps do not personallyshare the opinions of the dissentingtheologians, but who are determined todefend the use of consequentialism asif this were a legitimate theological option. For this reason, the negative reaction seemed to be not to my theoreticalcriticism of consequentialism so muchas to the practical conclusion I drewconcerning the way the Church oughtto regard theologians who adopt thistheory and use it to criticize receivedCatholic moral teaching.

Those who reacted negatively assumethe legitimacy of the use of consequentialism in Catholic moral theology; for them, the theologians whohave adopted it are simply one schoolin the rich pluralism which properly exists in the Church. I was questioningthis assumption. Understandably, theyconsidered my argument and conclusion to be dangerously divisive. Ontheir assumption, my view seems uncharitable. And so they made clear invarious indirect ways that they considered my presentation uncharitable.

In many ways, a charge that one isuncharitable is unanswerable. Even if Ifind nothing on my conscience, this

NOVEMBER 1979

Dr. Germain Grisez, a layman, has beenappointed to the newly created Rev. HarryJ. Flynn Chair in Christian Ethics atMount Saint Mary's College, Emmitsburg,Maryland. With Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., herecently publishedLife and Death with Liberty and Justice: A Contribution to the Euthanasia Debate (University of Notre DamePress, 1979). He is now beginning work ona volume of principles of Catholic moraltheology.

does not mean I am justified. And usually I do find something on my conscience. I know well enough that whenI criticize the theologians who haveadopted consequentialism my tone isnot perfectly disinterested, perfectly expressive of the love of God, as the toneof Jesus is. I realize that I must notjudge others, nor do I mean to condemn those whom I believe dissent illicitly. Doubtless they believe they actrightly. But at times I find it hard tokeep this important point in mind.

And so the criticism led me to thinkonce more about a question which always is important and which probably

13

is more important now than ever: Howis one to be charitable when faced withdissenting theologians? Since manyreaders of this review must often findit necessary to withstand erroneous theological opinions, they may find mythoughts of some interest.

There certainly are several ways ofacting which truly are uncharitable anddivisive. Acting in these ways disruptsrather than builds up the life and workof the Church.

Uncharitableness shows out

First, it is uncharitable to withdrawinto a closed circle of like-thinkingpeople. One must be sensitive to thecriticisms of others, must try to thinksuch criticisms through, and must beready to make adjustments in one'sthought and action if such adjustmentsare necessary for progress in Christiantruth and life. To evade debate anddiscussion, to ignore objections againstone's views, and to foster the impression that those who disagree are an insignificant minority — such maneuversby either side hardly manifest goodwill.

Second, it is uncharitable to assumethe worst whenever anyone says ordoes something with which one doesnot agree. One must avoid rigid in-tegralism and must realize that there isa place for differences about nonessentials.

Third, it is uncharitable to be personally vindictive. One who loves thetruth of faith necessarily hates whatappear to be denials of it and seriouserrors against it. At the emotionallevel, it is hardly possible entirely toseparate one's feelings toward errorsfrom one's feelings toward those who

14

make errors. But one should try hardto avoid gratuitous nastiness. One mustwork to heal divisions, not welcomethem.

Fourth, it is uncharitable to subordinate the principle of the authority ofthe Church's teaching to the merelysubjective principle of one's own opinions or to the no less subjective principle of the "consensus of theologians" who belong to the same circleas oneself. The adoption of any suchsubjective principle as superior to theauthority of the Church's teaching putsone on a short road to heresy. Moreover, such an attitude is no less destructive of the unity of the Church ifit is adopted in the name of pastoralconcern for the faithful.

Other ways show truth

Fifth, even worse than heresy is radical uncharitableness toward one'senemies. To wish others damned or —what amounts to the same — to believethem so and to be glad of it is theworst sin against Christian charity.One is not easily tempted to commit sograve a sin. Perhaps more common isthe temptation to regard as useless thepatient work of charity, which alwaysforgives, seeks to remedy, and willinglyendures resistance and even violent rejection. When one is convinced thatone's opponents are doing what iswrong, one should hope that they aresincere and that God, who readshearts, will find their hearts pure or, ifhe does not, will make them so.

In contrast with ways of actingwhich really are uncharitable, there areother ways of acting which sometimesappear uncharitable but really are waysof doing the truth in love. The Gospel

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW

itself shows that Jesus brought notpeace but division, for he made everyone decide for him or against him. Nodoubt, he wanted everyone to decidefor him, and there would have been nodivision had they done so. And eventhose who decided against him werenot condemned by Jesus, but only bytheir own rejection of him if they persisted in it despite every subsequentgrace. But still, he accepted divisionand even the eternal divorce of some

for the sake of Truth. The saints, likewise, often occasioned conflict by theirfidelity to Christian truth and lovewhen many around them compromisedwith unbelief and the alienation of the

sinful world.

First, it might seem uncharitable butis really a work of Christian love toclarify important issues and to pointout serious abuses in the Church, evenwhen doing so superficially disrupts theharmony of the ecclesial community.To some extent false teachings andpractical abuses become institutionalized; to say or do anything aboutthem is to threaten a comfortable

modus vivendi. Talk which sounds im

polite and action which seems harsh bycommon sense standards often are re

quired by the standards of Christianjudgement.

Essentials compromised

Second, it might seem uncharitablebut is really a work of Christian loveto resist trends which threaten essential

aspects of faith and Christian life. Thetemptation is to tolerate what oneought to challenge, and thus to becomeso used to really outrageous ways oftalking and acting that one complacently allows essentials to be com

NOVEMBER 1979

promised. It is a sign of charity whenone remains as sensitive today as goodCatholics ever have been to every deviation from faith and right order inthe Church. Something is seriouslywrong if one's threshold of sensitivityconstantly rises so that only new andunusual deviations are felt as evil.

Third, it might seem uncharitablebut is really a work of Christian loveto recognize as fact the alienation between true Christian standards and the

standards of the secular world. A

Catholic scholar has to be very carefulnot to submit unreservedly to the standards of the secular academic estab

lishment, because in some importantways these standards are conditionedupon the rejection as servile of theobedience of faith. At times this neces

sary care will mean parting company

15

with those who claim to maintain a

"moderate" or "centrist" position —that is, a supposedly reasonable position between the "conservative" and

the "liberal" extremes. In reality, the"moderate position" often is no morethan a compromise between the radi-cality of Christian faith and a fullyconscious secular humanism. Looked

at reflectively, this compromise is noteven meaningful, for it says both"Yes" and "No" to the Gospel.

Error cannot be ignored

Fourth, it might seem uncharitablebut is really a work of Christian lovefor bishops and others who share theirpastoral office to fulfill with courageand firmness their duty of teaching andgoverning. Teaching and governing onbehalf of the Good Shepherd is a matter of sacramental responsibility, notjust a matter of doing a job to bringabout certain results. One who acts in

Christ's name must leave the fruit ofhis work to the Holy Spirit. Sometimesit will seem that various evil effectscould be avoided by ignoring dissentand disorder in the Church. But atsuch times, the good pastor will say tohimself: "Woe to me if I do not

preach the Gospel!" (1 Cor. 9:16), andhe will fulfill his mission out of season

just a vigorously as he fulfills it in season (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Fifth, it might seem uncharitable butis really a work of Christian love to defend what the Church teaches. PopePaul VI said in Humanae Vitae that itis an eminent work of charity to diminish in no way the saving teaching ofChrist. Anyone who reads the NewTestament — especially 2 John, 2 Peter, and the Pastorals — will see

16

clearly enough that "peace at anyprice" is no part of the apostolic attitude. Nor did the early Church consider false teaching to be a matter ofinnocent mistakes or licit pluarlism.The persistent holding of views at oddswith apostolic preaching was considered vicious subversion.

Sixth, it might seem uncharitable butis really the work of Christian love torecognize that enemies are enemies. Torecognize people as enemies is not tocondemn them as evil, but is to beclearly aware that they are actingagainst what one believes to be thecommon good to which one is committed. To pretend that enemies arefriends is to foster an illusion which is

contrary to honesty and damaging totrue unity. Charity demands love ofenemies, and this means that one mustknow enemies for what they are, butstill try to communicate with them forthe sake of Christ and the good of hisChurch, and also always hope andpray for their salvation.

All is not well

There surely are a great many peopleof good will who share certain viewpoints of the theologians who haveadopted consequentialism; there areothers who honestly feel they mustcondone what these theologians aredoing. Heaven knows it has been easyenough to become confused in recentyears. We need not and ought not tocondemn any particular individual.

Still, one cannot pretend that everything in the Church is as it should be.The present situation is very unhealthy,with a quiet schism already far advanced. On the one side are the pope,the bishops who stand with him, many

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW

scholars who are docile to received

Catholic teaching, and a large part ofthe clergy and laity. On the other sideare the theologians who have engagedin illicit dissent and those who have

taken up their cause or sought the shelter of their opinions. Wandering in theno-soul's-land between the two sides

are many of the faithful, not a few ofthe clergy, and even a few bishops.

Those who engage in illicit dissentagainst the Church's moral teachinghardly expect the pope and the bishopsto endorse their positions. But endorsement is unnecessary. All they everneeded, all they need now, is toleration. For if the theologians who haveadopted consequentialism can keeptheir status as acceptable Catholicteachers — if their views are treated as

legitimate theological opinions — thenthe dissenting positions prevail. For inpractice the moral teaching of theChurch is the whole spectrum of legitimate options. People will followwhichever tolerated opinion they like,and children will be taught whichevertolerated opinion appeals to those whoteach them.

If I had limited my paper at theWashington workshop to an analysisand a critique of consequentialism as atheory, I doubt that anyone wouldhave minded. But I gave reasons for apractical conclusion which I drew outexplicitly: that dissent based on consequentialism against the Church'smoral teaching is not a legitimate theological option, and that such dissentought not to be accepted as licit byanyone who shares in pastoral responsibility in the Church.

Inaction lends consent

This conclusion challenges the present advantageous position of the dissenters. It makes clear that no one re

sponds adequately to the dissent by amere pro forma repetition of theChurch's teaching. To treat opinionsbased on consequentialism as legitimate(even while formally rejecting them) isin fact to contribute to establishingsuch dissenting opinions as the teaching in practice of the Church — onemight say "as the teaching of theChurch recumbent."

When you're looking for new ideasand quality gifts for Christmas-Givingat your Local Church Goods Dealer,

LOOK FOR THIS SYMBOL

^c*u»o, it's your guarantee of^idflfc- prompt, courteous service* /9ir\ and the finest in religious\©m3(/ gifts, books, and church

c^rIOu^ goods!

For a FREE listing of the National Church GoodsDealer nearest you, complete and mail this coupon today].

Vj® NATIONAL CHURCH 6000S ASSOCIATION(eJQ 1114 Greenfield Lane • Mt. Prospect. IL 60056

I I Please send me the name of the

NATIONAL CHURCH GOODS Dealer

nearest me'

HPR

NAME

STRFFT

CITY

STATF 7IP

NOVEMBER 1979 17

. . . the argument has beenused by dissenters themselves

that the fact that they remain ingood standing and continue

to enjoy some authorization toteach in the Church establishes

the legitimacy of their viewsas a theological opinion.

This sort of challenge to the statusof the dissenting opinions is a threat tothe theologians who hold them as wellas to those who have taken up theircause or sought the shelter of theseopinions. Naturally, such a threat istaken personally. There is a tendencyto respond in kind, and so some didrespond with the personal and adhominem suggestion that it was uncharitable of me to offer this challenge.

Of course, if I believed that the positions which I criticized were legitimate,my conclusion that such dissent shouldnot be tolerated would be uncharitable.Those who reacted negatively ought tohave challenged my conclusion by ar-guring that the use of consequentialismis a proper method in Catholic theology. Instead they merely assumed thecontradictory of my thesis that dissentbased on consequentialism is illicit.Had they openly argued against myconclusion while simply assuming theproposition which I had tried to disprove, their argument would have beenquestion-begging and obviously so.Their negative reaction was analogousto a question-begging argument, butmore effective and more subtle thanany argument could have been.

Why more effective and moresubtle? Because one who is criticizedfor lack of charity can hardly ignore

18

the criticism. It demands sincere examination of conscience. Defects in charity are there to be found, and one mustseek to repair them. I realize my owndefects in charity and pray for God'smercy. I criticize the positions of others when I have reasons for thinkingthem false; I criticize the actions ofothers when I have reasons for thinking them objectively wrong. I do notintend to judge the conscience of others, but perhaps I have slipped at timesinto uncharitable confusion betweenthe objective and the subjective morality of the acts of others. If so, I trulyseek their forgiveness. And so I hopethat by God's mercy the dissenting theologians and I — and all involved andaffected — will be brought together inheaven.

Illicit dissent is malignant

Meanwhile, I intend to be silencedneither by my own real defects nor bythe appearance of uncharitablenesswhich is likely to arise when one arguesthat what others are doing is wrong —seriously, objectively wrong. Unfortunately the appearance of uncharitableness is almost unavoidable in the present atmosphere when one speaks thetruth with clarity, for many seem nolonger able to make the distinction between the objective morality of actsand the subjective responsibility of persons acting.

Nor can I admit it to be divisive to

clarify the present situation in theChurch. The clothiers, not the childwho pointed out that the emperor hadno clothes, were responsible for his nakedness. I do not welcome the schism

which has been created by illicit theological dissent. I only call attention to

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW

the situation in the hope that it mightbe remedied. But there is not likely tobe a remedy for this condition until itsreality and gravity is brought to fullconsciousness.

I urge all who share in pastoral responsibility in the Church to be silenced neither by any defects theymight have, nor by any mere appearance of uncharitableness. Illicit theological dissent must be treated for whatit is. It is a malignancy, not growingpains. It is not going to go away by itself. To deal with it as if it were a legitimate theological option is to fosterit.

Are there alternatives?

In recent years, both the Holy Seeand the bishops have reaffirmed constant and very firm Catholic teachingon matters such as contraception,abortion, fornication, and the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriages. Many who sharepastoral responsibility in the Churchand who wholeheartedly reject illicitdissent from teachings such as thesenevertheless believe that they have littlechoice but to tolerate such dissent.What is the alternative? The use of disciplinary measures not only would leadto a bruising struggle but also probablywould drive dissent underground, noteliminate it. And even those who agreethat the Church's teaching on matterssuch as those mentioned has been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magis-terium of the Church do not thinkheresy trials would help to heal thepresent division in the Church.

I by no means advocate heresy trials.But there are measures which can andshould be taken in the line of teaching

NOVEMBER 1979

which could make clear that dissentbased upon consequentialism is illicit,that it is not condoned, that it is notaccepted in the Church.

First, when the Church's moralteaching is reaffirmed, its author-itativeness and exclusive legitimacyshould be underlined. It is urgent toexclude the view that theological opinions against the Church's constant andvery firm teaching may be used in theformation of a Catholic conscience.

Second, the general principles of thedissenting moral theology, not merelyits specific normative conclusions,should be rejected authoritatively. Theproposition, "Spouses may responsiblydecide according to their conscience

PASTORS...ASSOCIATE PASTORS • •Religious Education Coordinators .,,

Would you like to help yourCCD Teachers, your Parents andGrandparents in handing theCatholic Faith on to your children?

Give them The Herald of Catholic Teaching for 1979-1980 byIndividual Subscription or by economical parish bulk subscription!

For free information addressRev. Msgr. Eugene KevaneCenter for Home Catechetics

P.O. Box 1404

Arlington. Virginia 22210Affiliated with the Pontifical Catechetical

Institute, Middleburg, Virginia

19

that artificial contraception in somecircumstances is permissible and indeednecessary to preserve and foster the

values and sacredness of marriage,''was asserted by some dissenting theologians in 1968. Little did most bishopsimagine that the same kind of argument would be used — as it has been— to justify particular acts of abortion, fornication, adultery, and virtually every sort of act the CatholicChurch has condemned as alwayswrong. The proposition of 1968 hasbeen generalized into the explicit con-sequentialist thesis: Anyone may responsibly decide in accordance with hisor her conscience that any sort of action whatsoever is permissible and evenobligatory in appropriate circumstancesto preserve and foster proportionategoods or to avoid disproportionateevils. This general proposition ought tobe explicitly condemned. It is contraryto faith and is rationally indefensible.(No one should confuse it with thesound, traditional principle that onewho does good sometimes may acceptbad side effects.)

Withdraw teaching authority

Third, the bishops need not seek outdissenters, but they should withdrawall ecclesial authority to teach fromanyone whom they know engages in illicit dissent. As Vatican II makes clear,other teachers in the Church only teachby sharing in the teaching authority ofthe bishops (LG 28, DV 10, and PO6). Hence when a bishop withholds orwithdraws from someone an authorization to teach, the bishop's act neednot be considered a disciplinary measure. It is not a punishment but ateaching measure, because those who

20

teach with a bishop's authorizationexercise the bishop's own teaching authority. The bishop himself remains responsible to Christ. Because the faithful and even the world sense this to beso, everyone quite reasonably assumesthat a bishop approves what he authorizes others to teach. And so in practice the Church teaches what the bishops knowingly permit to be taught withtheir authority, even though they personally hold and reaffirm the moraltruth which the Catholic Church hasheld and handed on through the centuries.

Standing condones legitimacy

Someone will object that the bishopsonly tolerate and do not cooperate inaffirming dissenting opinions whichthey personally and clearly reject. Butthe argument has been used by dissenters themselves that the fact thatthey remain in good standing and continue to enjoy some authorization toteach in the Church establishes the legitimacy of their views as a theologicaloption. Indeed, some go so far as toclaim that on certain questions the"consensus of theologians" is soweighty that the Church's constantmoral teaching no longer is a respectable opinion, and that a pastoral practice according to such teaching mustnow be excluded as rigoristic.

In dogmatic theology tolerated opinions can remain mere speculation, andso they do not automatically gainstatus as part of the Church's teaching.But in moral theology a licit theological opinion is going to be acceptedin practice. Thus any licit opinionin moral theology becomes part ofthe spectrum which constitutes the

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW

Church's actual moral teaching. And ifthe Church's true teaching is comparatively demanding, a less demanding opinion which is accepted as licit islikely to prevail. For this reason, inmorality the bishops actually teachmore by what they allow than by whatthey say.

I have no illusion that the teachingmeasures I have outlined can be carriedout easily and without some bad sideeffects. But I believe that charity toward the Church which is sufferingfrom illicit dissent requires these teaching measures. It was easy to imagine in1968 that whatever good is at stake incontraception, whatever evil is done byit, simply was not worth the price offirmness against dissent. But I believe acase can be made for saying that thosewho continue to authorize others to

teach consequentialism today are cooperating — one trusts without realizingit — in killing the unborn and in manyother evils. I know that this statement

seems terribly harsh, but I believe it isstrictly true. And I believe that theduty of fraternal correction, which belongs to charity, demands that it besaid.

Do bishops teach dishonestly?

Some of the dissenting theologianshave openly demanded that the division created by their dissent be healedby an admission by the pastors of theChurch that received Catholic moralnorms are false, despite the fact thatthese same pastors have reaffirmedthese norms repeatedly until now. Suchdissenters imply that the bishops teachdishonestly.

I find it incredible that our Fathers

in Christ teach dishonestly in his name.

NOVEMBER 1979

In practice the Church teacheswhat the bishops knowinglypermit to be taught with theirauthority, even though theypersonally hold and reaffirm themoral truth which the Catholic

Church has held and handed on

through the centuries.

I imply nothing worse than that someof them at times might be somewhattimid and more than a little confused,as even St. Peter was when he failed tocarry out perfectly an important pointof Christian teaching which he personally had clearly affirmed (cf. Gal. 2:11-14; Acts 15:6-11). My request and myprayer is that, with the help of theHoly Spirit upon whom they are entitled to rely, our Fathers in Christ willreflect more adequately upon the significance of what they allow others toteach, and that they personally willcontinue to teach with the full courageof their sincere Catholic convictions.

One last point. I have given reasonsfor what I have said. If my argumentsare not sound, if the conclusions arefalse, I hope that someone more ablewill correct me. In what I have written

here as in everything I write — ineverything I think — I submit gladlyand without reservation to the betterjudgment of the Church. From onewho is my Father in Christ I am readyto accept as the word of the Lordwhatever correction I need. •

*A cassette recording of the above articlemay be obtained from: Cardinal Communications, Box 34, New London, Conn.06320. Price $3.00 postpaid (Canada: add50$).

21