Contraception and conscience: a reply to Bernard Daly and Archbishop Gervais.

Humanae vitae - 30 years

The following is another contribution to the ongoing discussion on the July 1968 Encyclical Humanae vitae. The aspect of "conscience" is very important (see "Conscience, a reason to dissent?", C.I., May, '98; "Conscience and binding teaching," Sept. '98; and "Will bishops clear up confusion?", Oct., `98). The author replies to Mr. Bernard Daly whose rejection of criticisms against the Bishops' September 1968 Winnipeg Statement appeared in the Catholic Register of Sept. 14, (reprinted in Western Catholic Reporter, Edmonton), and to Archbishop Gervais' reply to two correspondents on the same subject.

The teaching that contraceptive intercourse is sinful, even in marriage, has been clearly and forcefully taught by Pope Pius XI (in his 1930 encyclical Casti connubii), by Pope Paul VI (in his 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae), and by Pope John Paul II (in his encyclicals Veritatis splendor [1993] and Evangelium vitae [1995] and in many other writings). This twentieth-century teaching is the heir of a 1900-year-old tradition and may be found summarized in The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). Yet this teaching has not been widely accepted by Catholics, and not even by some Catholic bishops.

As indicated in the three previous issues of this magazine, the Society for Catholic Life and Culture (SCLC) here in Canada--following the request by Bishop Danylak (see July/August C.I.)--has asked the Canadian bishops to reconsider the statement of the bishops at their Winnipeg meeting in September, 1968, thirty years ago. In that statement the bishops allowed their married faithful to contracept under certain conditions, an exception not allowed by Pius XI, or Paul VI, or John Paul II, or the Catechism. Some bishops, or other spokespersons, in order to justify the Winnipeg Statement, have responded to the SCLC by quoting from the Second Vatican Council's document on the "Church in the World", Gaudium et spes (1965), and by referring especially to the teaching of this document on conscience.

Bernard Daly and Section 50

For example, Bernard Daly, who worked for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops for thirty-five years, and also was editor of the Toronto archdiocesan weekly paper The Catholic Register for two years, has written an article in The Register in which he twice quotes from Gaudium et spes (Sept. 14, 1998). The first quotation, he says, shows the primacy of conscience; the second upholds the dignity of the person.

He first quotes from section 50. This states, concerning the spacing of births, that "it is the married couples themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God." This quotation seems to give credence to the Winnipeg Statement's article 26, which states that "whoever honestly chooses the course which seems right to him does so in good conscience." Is, then, the Winnipeg Statement correct after all?

Mr. Daly does not mention, however, that the next section in Gaudium et spes, no. 51, states that, "in questions of birth regulation, the children of the Church . . . are forbidden to use methods disapproved by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law" (emphasis added). Overlooking this section, Mr. Daly draws the conclusion that the spouses may rightfully contracept if their conscience tells them to. This, he says, is because of the "primacy of conscience."

But surely Daly doesn't want to justify a false or erroneous conscience. So what he is saying, in fact, is that a couple can form a correct conscience while contradicting the teaching of the Magisterium.

Now, it seems to me that he cannot rightly claim that Gaudium et spes says this. Conscience is an act of the intellect applying the general teaching of the Natural Law and the general teaching of the Church to one's own particular case, either before performing an act or after it. Conscience is not a law-giver; it does not "create" the truth; it is the applier of laws to particular cases. It is a right conscience if its application is correct; it is an erroneous conscience if its application is incorrect. A person can make a mistake, even an honest mistake, but that person cannot change or overrule a law.

A correct judgment of conscience accepts the law as it applies to a particular case. And the correctness of the judgment depends completely on the correctness of the law and the correctness of the application. In the case of a law which admits of no exception, as is true of the law concerning contraception, no one's conscience can correctly find an exception. Thus, when Gaudium et spes says that the spacing of births is a matter for the parents alone, it is stating that, provided there is no breach of the law, the parents may space births, say, by abstaining from intercourse or by using Natural Family Planning. Anything else would be a contradiction.

Section 17 on the dignity of the person

Daly also quotes section 17 of Gaudium et spes, which, he says, defends the dignity of the person. He implies that all external constraints are an affront to a person's dignity.

The article reads: "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint." Daly claims that "this teaching shows that it is an offence against human dignity to argue that Catholics should be externally constrained, by edict of pope or bishops, simply to fall in line and obey." What does this claim imply?

First, that he does not seem to believe that the teaching of the Church's Magisterium comes from God. If he does believe that, he would be saying that Catholics should not be bound by the law of God.

Secondly, that he is contradicting the teaching of the Canadian bishops in their Statement on the Formation of Conscience (1973). The bishops, speaking of the Magisterium, say: "Nor must this be considered as some sort of inhibition or limiting force" (#12). The bishops wrote against people who say that "no one can tell them what to do, including the Church." Indeed, they state quite strongly that, "for a believer, this teaching of the Magisterium . . . is the definitive cornerstone upon which the whole edifice of conscientious judgment must be built. . . . A believer has the absolute obligation of conforming his conduct first and foremost to what the Church teaches . . ." (#38-39; emphasis added).

"In matters of faith and morals," they continue, "the bishops speak in the name of the Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (Lumen gentium, #25)" (#41).

Archbishop Gervais of Ottawa

Archbishop Marcel Gervais of Ottawa--like Bernard Daly--is also unhappy with those who challenge the Winnipeg Statement. In his replies to people in Ottawa who have written him on this subject he has stated: "I found the tone of the Catholic Insight features on the Winnipeg Statement completely out of line, for they blame the Canadian bishops for all the negative excesses of the contraceptive mentality, when in fact all the bishops did was to affirm Church teaching on moral conscience" (emphasis added).

Let us leave aside the Archbishop's charge that the Catholic Insight authors blamed the Canadian bishops "for all the negative excesses of the contraceptive mentality." I don't find proof of that in their articles. But what the authors do say is that the Winnipeg Statement was in error, that it contradicted the Pope's encyclical, and that this contradiction has had major consequences in the family and sexual education field among North American Catholics.

Archbishop Gervais attempts to refute this by saying that "all the bishops did was to affirm Church teaching on moral conscience." In support of this he, too, insists on "the primacy of the human conscience" and for this he turns to Gaudium et spes, this time to section 16. This lengthy section says: ". . . Deep within his conscience man discovers a law . . . . His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged . . . . Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity . . . ."

Now, this is "Church teaching on moral conscience," but we should note that it speaks of a conscience going astray; it does not say that a well-intentioned conscience is a right conscience. No one wants to claim that a conscience which has gone astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid has lost its dignity, but we must judge it to be mistaken.

Conclusion

We should look now at the controversial section 26 of the Winnipeg Statement to see whether it does actually "affirm Catholic teaching on moral conscience." It reads as follows: "In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons [spouses who are having trouble with the spacing of births] have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course that seems right to him does so in good conscience."

It should be noted that this statement is very ambiguous. (1) It may simply state a tautology, that is, say the same thing in two different ways, that is, state that to choose honestly is to choose in good conscience. (2) Or it may mean that someone who chooses honestly will not be held guilty. (3) Or it may mean that someone who chooses honestly does what is right.

The first interpretation cannot be what the bishops had in mind, since then they would simply be giving a definition of "honestly". The bishops no doubt had the second interpretation in mind, since it is quite true, as we have read in section 16 of Gaudium and spes, that someone who chooses honestly will not be held guilty. But, unfortunately, very many persons (indeed, perhaps everyone) judged that what the bishops also had in mind was the third interpretation, that is, that someone who chooses honestly chooses what is right. That this is so is shown by the preamble of section 26, which tells married couples that it applies to them only if they have not been able to avoid pregnancy; that is, it does not apply to others, whereas the first two interpretations apply to everyone.

And thus the bishops were not simply affirming "Church teaching on moral conscience," nor were they following "the accepted principles of moral theology." The Church's teaching is that an honest decision of conscience is not blameworthy but that it may well be wrong. And, since the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, it should never be recommended. This is what Pope John Paul II said, speaking of Humanae vitae at the Moral Theology Congress in Rome in 1988: "Since the Magisterium of the Church was created by Christ the Lord to enlighten conscience, then to appeal to that conscience precisely to contest the truth of what is taught by the Magisterium implies rejection of the Catholic concept of both the Magisterium and moral conscience" (L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 19-26, 1988, pp. 6-7). Anyone who says, "I don't believe in following the teaching of the Catholic Church, but in following my conscience" is not a Catholic.

Fr. Leonard Kennedy, C.S.B., is a priest in the Congregation of St. Basil. A former professor of philosophy at the University of Windsor, he also served as President of St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon; headed the Centre for Thomistic Studies in Houston, TX; and taught at St. Peter's Seminary, London, ON. He now resides in Toronto.