Readers are recommended to read first the
postscript ! " If the label is Catholic, the content
must be also Catholic! Beware, this file
is neither 100% Catholic nor 100% Pro-Life!
Thank you for visiting us. Fr. John A. Nariai,
Humanae Vitae Research Institute.
CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE AND HUMANAE VITAE
Boniface Honings
Boniface Honings, age 58, is professor of moral theology and dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical Lateran University. He has written numerous articles on sexuality, both general and particularized: on HUMANAE VITAE, divorce, abortion, premarital sex, etc. He contributes to several international scientific reviews and is a consultor of the Pontifical Commission on justice and Peace.
Because of her stand on grave moral problems in our day such as birth control, access to the sacraments by divorced persons who have remarried, and abortion, the Church is accused of " not being a credible sign of the merciful love which God bears all without exception, and of not living her motherhood of grace toward her most suffering and needy children." (1)
So far as HUMANAE VITAE is concerned - and that is precisely what interests us here - such an accusation is baseless. Indeed the very contrary is true.
" The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than does the Redeemer," wrote Pope Paul VI in HUMANAE VITAE, 19. " She knows their weakness, has compassion on the multitude, welcomes sinners. But she cannot renounce teaching the law that in reality is proper to human life restored in its original truth and led by the Spirit of God."
In these few pages I shall try to highlight this papal document's pastoral concern for safeguarding the personal responsibility of married couples. I shall deal with the demands of conscience for autonomy and for theonomy; that is, for personal judgment but on the basis of information which agrees with God's norms. The treatment covers theory as well as application to practical life. Finally, I will emphasize participation in the life of the Church, especially in her sacraments, by couples who are " moving gradually" towards the goal of Christian perfection.
1. Autonomous decision and theonomous information
With this title I wish to indicate from the start how conscience is an eminently personal act which binds man, finally, before God. As GAUDIUM ET SPES expresses it: " His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths" (GS 16). A person who loves God cannot fail to want to know His will here and now, in order to commit himself to carry out in the best way possible what he has understood he should do, or to shun 'what he should not do: " Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that" (GS 16).
In the depths of his heart man formulates a judgment on the moral value of acting or not acting. He holds what he should do to be in accord with the divine will, and what he should shun to be contrary to the divine will. He decides how he should behave, in the concrete, in order that what he does or does not do may express his desire to obey God.
From this sincere desire to discover and acknowledge the imperatives of the divine law through one's own conscience stems, for everyone, the obligation to respect the decision of conscience. Man is bound to follow it " faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act against his conscience. Nor must he be hindered from acting according to it..." (2)
Note that the key expression of the discussion about conscience " is conformity between personal decision and divine will. The decision is indeed autonomous in the sense that it is the final subjective standard of practical behavior. However this autonomous decision is the final practical norm in the measure in which it correctly interprets the objective moral order established by God. Here we are at the root of the relation between conscience and the Magisterium, and hence of possible difficulties between them.
When Pope Paul VI dealt with responsible parenthood, he specified that it " also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, and of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter" (HV 10). The privilege of conscience to be autonomous must not be confused with a decision depending solely upon one's own free will. Rather it is conditioned upon, because measured by, the normative will of God. Moreover, Christ has ordained that the divine will find in the Church's Magisterium its only authentic interpreter:
In the task of transmitting life, they (couples) are not free, therefore, to proceed at will, as if they could determine with the complete autonomy the right paths to follow; but they must conform their actions to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its act, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church (HV 10).
Conscience, then, is at once autonomous and theonomous; or rather, it is autonomous because it is theonomous. From this it follows that the personal decision, besides having subjective qualities such as sincerity and certainty, also and above all has an objective quality: truth. It is precisely this quality, intrinsic to the personal decision, that engages the magisterial mission of the very Church of Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church is by the will of God the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and to teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself. (3)
It is not the Church's role, therefore, to displace the autonomous decision of conscience. Rather, the Church helps conscience by manifesting authentically the will of God, so that that decision of conscience can be truly ruled by the Wisdom of God.
2. Difficulties of accepting HUMANAE VITAE, and of applying its doctrine
As Christ mediated the knowledge of God's will in the order of the concrete moral decision, so also does the Church. On the occasion of the encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the proper regulation of the transmission of life, various problems of conscience arose concerning this mediating mission of the Magisterium. The various conferences of bishops dealt with them expressly, some more than others. It seems to me that the Bishops of England and Wales present a very precise and complete picture in their document:
At one time not only Catholics but all Christians held contraception to be abhorrent. In recent years, however, doubts have been expressed about the Church's interpretation of the moral law. The very fact that the Pope created a commission to review the question tended to confirm their doubts. It was soon widely believed that a change in the Church's attitude would be announced. Understandably many wives and husbands, anticipating the promised statement of the Pope, have come to rely on contraception. In this they have acted conscientiously and often after seeking pastoral advice. They may now be unable to see that, at least in their personal circumstances, the use of contraception is wrong. A particular difficulty faces those who after serious thought and prayer cannot as yet understand or be fully convinced of the doctrines as laid down. This is not surprising in view of the discussions of recent years which have resulted in the present controversy. For others the problem of putting the doctrine into practice in their lives seems insuperable because of ill-health or other serious obstacles, sometimes because of a conflict of duties. (4)
The above presents a good characterization of types of persons in difficulties of conscience. After pointing out the climate of openness in regard to methods of regulating births, the document distinguishes two classes of persons: those with theoretical difficulties, that is, of acceptance of the moral norm stated by the Magisterium; and those with practical difficulties, namely the application of the moral norm to their own conjugal situation. Both classes of people have a right to be taken seriously, precisely because they are not wanting in the religious respect due to the teaching authority of the Church. They fully admit the right and duty of the Magisterium to mediate doctrine about the norms for the moral behavior proper to Christians authentically. Neither the Pope's authority nor the validity of the doctrine taught by him are challenged.
1) Difficulties of acceptance in regard to theory
If one starts with the premise that HUMANAE VITAE is not an infallible ex cathedra declaration, and then goes on to conclude from this that it is not binding absolutely and unconditionally, (5) he may then be able to theorize that a person, especially if he is well informed and competent, may with due reflection in God's sight, adopt a personal judgment which does not agree with that of the Pope. In such a case he would supposedly have a right to follow his own conviction, provided he remain disposed to continue his search honestly.
It is extremely important, however, to clarify terms and conditions in regard to the above theory, in order to avoid simplistic mistakes.
It should be kept in mind, first of all, that a lack of an infallible declaration does not at all mean that the doctrine of HUMANAE VITAE lacks binding force upon the consciences of the faithful. Thus the Belgian Episcopal Conference, basing itself on No. 25 of LUMEN GENTIUM, writes:
... Even in the case where the Pope ... does not make use of the fullness of his teaching powers, the doctrines prescribed by him, in virtue of the power entrusted to him, demand in themselves on the part of the faithful a religious submission of will and intellect, sustained by the spirit of faith. This adhesion depends not so much on the arguments invoked in the pronouncement as on the religious motive appealed to by the authority sacramentally instituted in the Church." (6)
Furthermore, the conditions needed in order to have a right to follow one's own conviction include sufficient competence and information, a serious examination of conscience before God, a disposition to continue honestly the search for truth, and care to avoid endangering the common good, and others. The Bishops of West Germany wrote as follows in regard to this question:
One who believes that he should depart from a non-infallible teaching of the Church, both in regard to personal theory and private practice - such a possibility is basically conceivable - must ask himself reflectively and with a critical sense, whether he can do this in a responsible manner before God .... One who believes that he may think in this way should examine his conscience to ascertain whether he is free of presumption and superficial consent, and whether he can sustain his point of view responsibly before God. When defending his view he must respect the laws of internal dialogue in the Church, taking care to avoid any scandal. One who proceeds in this way avoids opposition to the properly constituted authority of the Church and to the duty of obedience. Only by proceeding in this way do they contribute to their Christian thinking and manner of life. (7)
The right to follow one's conviction does not at all mean that the conviction is in agreement with objective truth. More: the presumption of truth certainly stands on the side of the Pope, who proposes his doctrine as the constant teaching of the Church. I would therefore venture to state that the convictions of our inquirer, no matter how competent and well informed he may be, rather are mistaken, objectively speaking. Nevertheless, since he has reached his conclusion with honesty and conviction, this conclusion is the basis for his right. Here one applies the principle already formulated by St. Thomas: " Although the judgment of erroneous reason does not derive from God, nevertheless such reason presents the judgment as true and therefore as derived from God on whom all truth depends." (8)
The Church, then, respects the personal decision of conscience. At the same time she enjoins on conscience the duty to continue its search so that it may arrive at objective conformity to the divine will, as the Magisterium of the Church authoritatively manifests it.
From what has been said thus far, it follows that non-acceptance in conscience of HUMANAE VITAE is to be judged with pastoral prudence. Certainly, non-acceptance is most often not founded on specific competence in the matter and on adequate information. But even if it were solidly founded, non-acceptance remains subject to the obligation of being questioned by the search for objective truth mediated by the Magisterium.
By this I do not mean to underestimate the effort these believers must make, but I think it is a question of the attitude most proper to a believing Catholic. It is reasonable, in fact, to apply the principle: " I am not convinced by the arguments used, but it is the Church which proposes the teaching to me. For this reason I conduct myself according to the teaching of the Church." The Bishops of West Germany gave directions according to this line:
A sincere effort to discover the value of a teaching of the Church also of a temporary one, and to internalize it, is a necessary duty arising from the right attitude of faith in a Catholic. just as in secular life profound decisions are made on the basis of a sincere but fallible knowledge of another person, so also no one in the Church should feel ashamed or think himself harmed when he prefers the doctrine of the Church to his own, even though he knows from the beginning that it does not have definitive value ... (9)
2) Difficulties in regard to practice
Even where difficulties of a theoretical nature may not exist, or are overcome easily, practical difficulties arising from various reasons may pose obstacles to applying the norms of the encyclical.
The discussion goes into various directions at this point because the factors which can render the application of HUMANAE VITAE difficult are of different kinds, and they may affect the subjective " responsibility" of the couple. Such are: a culture excessively preoccupied with sex which strongly conditions persons whose critical judgment has not been developed sufficiently or who are still on the road towards maturity (perhaps they received only minimal instructions before marriage or none at all); the pull of instinct and of contracted habits may be strong; also temptations, moral weakness, a lack of accord between spouses on this question, and similar factors come to mind. In addition to subjective difficulties, spouses frequently face objective difficulties, whether individual or social; and here the discussion becomes even more subtle and delicate.
First of all, we must make clear that the difficulties do have characteristics of an objective nature. Insofar as they are situations in which the couples find themselves, the difficulties are subjective. On the other hand, we must take into consideration that they are real, that is objective difficulties. " Where the intimacy of married life is broken, it often happens that faithfulness is imperiled and the good of the children suffers: then the education of the children as well as the courage to accept more children are both endangered" (GS 51). In these cases it is customary to speak of a conflict of duties: on the one hand, the spouses would fail in their duty to avoid or to postpone a new birth; on the other hand, they would fail in their duty to preserve the stability of their union. To break out of this dilemma the solution proposed is recourse to the principle of preferential choice before God. The spouses are supposedly the ones who have to decide, in a particular case, which of the duties is greater." Certainly, traditional wisdom is acquainted with the principle at issue; it suffices to recall the classic example of the mother facing the dilemma of Sunday Mass and caring for a child who is gravely ill. The mother can perform only one of these duties; by doing one she necessarily omits the other. But she thinks that she sins, whichever choice she makes. Actually, in this so-called situation of perplexity, the mother sins neither subjectively nor objectively. What she does is to make a choice of one over the other, and this in the sight of God. Perplexity exists only in the erroneous conscience, not in any will of God. Since the two values can be separated one from the other, the one which God wills is the one which a rightly formed conscience chooses in His presence.
Our case concerning difficulties about applying the norm of conjugal morality is different, however. But even here - and this must be said at once - there is no conflict of duties on the objective level, that is on the level of God's will. As the Fathers of Vatican II taught: " The Church calls to mind once more that there can be no real contradiction between the divine laws governing the transmission of life on the one hand, and the fostering of a genuine married love on the other" (GS 51). The conflict, however real, is found only on the subjective level, that is, in the minds of the spouses. Now, if the solution of preferential choice were valid, the spouses would then be allowed to choose a " unitive" act which, from the point of view of its " procreative" meaning, would be either irresponsible because open to conception, or intrinsically evil because of contraceptive measures. In either case they would be choosing in the sight of God to sin, at least objectively; and even intrinsically if they use a contraceptive measure. The point at issue here is not the ability to achieve one of two values or meanings, the unitive or the procreative; the point is the duty to mean both those values in one and the same act of mutual love, and that is the very conjugal act itself. Only " by so doing, (do) they give proof of love that is truly and fully virtuous" (HV 16). " Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infertile and so is intrinsically wrong, could be made right by a fertile conjugal life considered as a whole" (HV 14).
The same holds true for all the other reasons which support the various difficulties of applying the moral norms of HUMANAE VITAE. There the so-called solution of preferential choice is not acceptable, in our case, because it is in opposition to the basic moral principle: Bonum est faciendum, malum autem vitandum; non sunt facienda mala ut eveniant bona." (Do good, but avoid evil; do not perform what is evil in order to achieve a good result.)
It may happen, however, that even while spouses know the objective law of God and therefore the objectivity of sin, they may think that in their own particular subjective situation God does not charge them with sin; or at least that He does not charge them with a serious or mortal sin (" fault" ). Not every objective disorder is necessarily, by the very fact of objectivity, a subjective fault. There can be various factors which decrease - or in the extreme case remove entirely - personal responsibility, and therefore moral imputability. " Particular circumstances of a human act which is objectively evil, though they cannot transform it into an objectively virtuous act, can render it inculpable, or less culpable, or subjectively defensible." (12) The principle emerges, then, which must guide us in the solution of difficulties in the application of the moral norms of HUMANAE VITAE: a lessening of the gravity of the sin is possible.
Obviously, it can happen here, as in other areas, that there is a " de facto " case of an erroneous judgment of conscience. A shepherd of souls is obliged to respect this, if the error is invincible. There remains, however, an obligation to look for a way of conduct that will permit adapting one's behavior to the norm willed by God and manifested by the Church.
3. Participation in sacramental life
What we have said until now has application especially in the administration of the sacraments. As the Bishops of West Germany wrote:
Therefore the shepherds of souls will respect the personal decisions of the consciences of the faithful in their ministry, and especially in the administration of the sacraments. (13)
The point is brought home by Pope Paul VI:
The Church, while teaching the inviolable demands of divine law, announces the tidings of salvation, and by means of the sacraments opens up the paths of grace, which makes of man a new creature, capable of corresponding in love and authentic freedom to the design of his Creator and Savior, and of experiencing the gentleness of the yoke of Christ (HV 25).
The problem of recourse to the sacraments is to be resolved not only with the criterion of the possible lessening of grave guilt (not to be confused with the principle of the lesser evil), but also with the criterion of the gradualness of progress towards the ideal of Christian perfection. The Conference of the Bishops of France observes:
It may happen that some Christian spouses admit that they are guilty of not responding to the demands explained by the encyclical. Let their faith and their humility help them not to become discouraged. Let them be convinced that the failings of spouses, who are otherwise generous in their personal and apostolic life, are not comparable in gravity to the failings of couples who scorn this teaching and who allow themselves to be dominated by selfishness and the search for pleasure. They must not keep away from the sacraments, but should do quite the contrary. (14)
So Pope Paul VI writes to priests:
Teach married couples the indispensable way of prayer; prepare them to have recourse often and with faith to the sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, without ever allowing themselves to be discouraged by their own weakness (HV 29).
At this point I think I should clarify what is meant by an authentic pastoral program based on the principle of " gradualness" with reference to the reception of the sacraments.
1) The Principle of " Gradualness"
The principle of gradualness applies to all sectors of moral life, and' therefore to the sexual life of spouses too. We find rhythms of growth. here which vary from couple to couple, and from time to time in the same couple. A statement by the Bishops of Italy is apropos:
Finally, a special and fatherly invitation must be extended to Christian spouses .... They should not feel downhearted because of any failures. The Church, whose duty it is to teach goodness in its totality and perfection, is aware that there are laws of growth in goodness, and that now and then a person may be moving ahead through still imperfect degrees, but aiming sincerely to move beyond them in a constant striving toward the 'ideal'. (15)
And the Bishops of France:
The encyclical stimulates us to set out on the road. Man moves forward on the path of holiness only with patient steps, now falling, now rising again. Every day is a little battle, sustained by hope. Every existence is intermingled with good and evil. What is essential is that, despite this ambiguity, the sense of life and of love move ahead in sincere fidelity to truth. (16)
However even this principle of gradualness must be rightly understood. What it requires, first of all, is that a couple really " set out on the journey." Then, the couple must travel toward a goal which is clearly defined. Finally, the couple must take steps which are possible for them in their concrete situation. What finally characterizes gradualness is not so much the weaknesses or the failures, or even the difficulties to overcome along the way, as perseverance in efforts to move forward along the way of the Lord.
The criterion in judging gradualness is of a positive nature:
For this reason spouses are fortified and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of the state by a special sacrament; fulfilling their conjugal and family role by virtue of this sacrament, spouses are penetrated with the spirit of Christ and their whole life is suffused with faith, hope, and charity; thus they increasingly further their own perfection and their mutual sanctification, and together they render glory to God (GS 48).
In other words, the spouses should find " in sacramental participation in the love of the Lord Jesus not only the sublime model but also the effective stimulus so that their life be shaped day by day as a following and imitation of Christ, as growth in mutual communion and in dedication to their children, in service and mission within the Church, in love and concern for everyone, and in desire and hope for the glory of God." (17)Thus gradualness embraces the vast gamut of commitments belonging to a communion of life and Christian love, and modeled on the spousal love between Christ and the Church. Here it is obvious that not all duties are fulfilled with the same perfection and the same intensity, and so there is really room for failing in one or more duties. It will be up to the spiritual shepherd to evaluate prudently to what extent the spouses' judgment of conscience conforms to objective truth where they do not feel themselves separated from God's love.
2) Sacramental Life
In the light of the principle of gradualness, in the positive sense set forth above, we can also face the problem of the spouses' participation in the Church's sacraments. We know that the sacraments are not concessions meant only for such of the faithful who do not sin gravely because of their weakness; nor are they mere aids to overcome certain difficulties of life. The sacraments are, more than anything else, peak moments of encounter with Christ to actuate His work of redemption. And so they are important moments in the process of moral and spiritual growth in the Christian life, both personal and ecclesial.
This applies basically to the Eucharist. The Church desires of the faithful: " Offering the immaculate victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also together with him, they should learn to offer themselves. Through Christ, the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and each other, so that finally God may be all in all." " Participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice means, for the spouses, a perfecting of their unity, which could be better expressed and effected if they would nourish themselves with the Body of Christ.19 This explains why Paul VI, addressing himself to Christian spouses, writes; " Let married couples, thus face up to the efforts needed, supported by faith and hope .... Let them implore divine assistance by persevering prayer; let them, especially in the Eucharist, draw from the source of grace and charity" (HV 25).
Of course, the spouses need to be in the state of grace in order to be able to express and effect their communion of life and love through the Eucharist. And here we come to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Returning with humble perseverance to God's mercy, they can realize the fulness of conjugal life as the Apostle describes it in the fifth chapter of the Letter to the Ephesians, in terms-of mutual love. The spouses, while they make of their lives the experience of God's mercy and proclaim it, celebrate with the priest the liturgy of the Church, which is continually converting and renewing herself:
Therefore the celebration of this sacrament is always an act of the Church, by it the Church proclaims her faith, gives thanks to God for the freedom with which Christ has freed us, offers her life as a spiritual sacrifice to the praise and glory of God, and hastens to meet Christ the Lord. (20)
Conclusion
Such is the pastoral stance of HUMANAE VITAE. It is a positive perspective of sacramental life that permits all Christian spouses and, in particular, those who are coping with difficulties - in accepting or applying, in conscience, the moral norm willed by God and manifested by the authentic Magisterium of the Church, to pursue an authentic route of the Christian life, marked by a gradualness that is lived sincerely.
Without diminishing in any way the saving doctrine of Christ, Pope Paul VI wants spouses to be accompanied by the understanding and patience of which the Redeemer Himself gave an example in dealings with men. Though intransigent against evil, He was certainly patient and merciful towards sinners (Cf. HV 29).
Hence, the Congregation of the Clergy stipulates:
While the counselor has the obligation of giving an objective judgment on the data at hand, he should not presume too hastily, on the one hand, that the person is completely innocent; nor should he, on the other hand, judge too hastily that the person is deliberately refusing the divine commandment of love, in the case of a person who is honestly trying to lead a good Christian life (21).
N.B. See important postscript which follow below the footnotes and bibliography.
Footnotes
1. Conference of the Bishops of Italy, Pastoral Letter concerning those divorced and remaried, and those who live in irregular marriages, and difficult situations, (1979) No. 30.
2. Declaration on Religious Liberty (DH) No. 3.
3. Ibid. No. 14.
4. Declaration of the Conference of Bishops of England and Wales, concerning HUMANAE VITAE and the Episcopal Magisterium. L. SANDRI, Bologna 1969, No. 148. We will give the reference according to the numbers of this collection in the notes about statements of Bishops Conferences which follow.
5. Bishops of Belgium, No. 80.
6. Bishops of Belgium, No. 81.
7. Bishops of West Germany, No. 46 and 59.
8. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica 1-11, 19, 5, ad 1.
9. Bishops of West Germany, Letter to those who have received from the Church the commission to announce the Gospel, September 22, 1967.
10. Bishops of France, No. 263.
11. " In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being" (HV 14).
12. Declaration of the Cong. for the Clergy, April 26, 1971, 11,4.
13. Bishops of West Germany, No. 63.
14. Bishops of France, No. 262
15. Bishops of Italy, No. 103.
16. Bishops of France, No. 258.
17. Bishops of Italy, Pastoral Document, Evangelization and the Sacra-
ment of Matrimony (1975) No. 52.
18. Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)
No. 48.
19. Cfr. Bishops of Italy, Document cited, No. 37 and 86.
20. Ordo Poenitentiae, Praenotanda, No. 7.
21. Document of the Cong. for the Clergy, April 26, 1971, 111, 2.
Bibliography:
D. CAPONE, La coscienza morale nelle discussioni sulla HUMANAE
VITAE, Rome, 1969.
E. QUARELLO, La HUMANAE VITAE: le conferenze episcopali
e l'obiezione di coscienza: Rivista di Teologia Morale 1 (1969) 63-83.
D. TETTAMANZI, Sacramenti e spiritualita conjugale, Roma 1967.
B. HONINGS, Il principio de inscindibilita. Un segno per due signifi-
cati: Lateranum 44 (1978) 169-194.
J. VISSER, La coscienza e Venciclica HUMANAE VITAE:
Lateranum 44 (1978) 228-242.