I consider the following statement by an Archbishop one of the best I've ever seen on the constant teaching of the Magisterium on the subject of contraception.
__________________________________________
For some time past, in this Diocese, statements have been
made by various categories of people in the daily press and in magazines concerning
contraception. Any writer or speaker who wishes to venture into the area of the
doctrine of the moral law is gravely obliged to understand correctly and to
state accurately the objective moral law as the teaching authority in the
Church explains that law.
In a Diocese, there is only one teaching authority who,
under the Pope and in union with him, is competent, by virtue of his sacred
office, to declare the authentic and objective moral law that is binding on all
the Faithful of his Diocese, both priests and lay folk. That authority is the
Bishop.
Accordingly, to correct the confusion that has been caused
in the minds of the Faithful of this Diocese, we hereby formally declare the
doctrine of the objective moral law concerning contraception: every action
which, either in anticipation of the marriage act or in the accomplishment of
that act, or, in the development of the natural consequences of that act,
proposes, either as an end or as a means, to make procreation impossible, is
unlawful in itself. In other words, any such contraceptive act is wrong in
itself.
This is the constant teaching of the church. This is the
teaching reaffirmed by the Pope, supreme Teacher of the Law of God in the
Church of Christ. Much is being written about conscience, as if conscience can
make right that which is wrong in itself. Conscience is a judgment by which an
individual decides from general principles that a particular act is good or
bad. That judgment is for each man the rule of his moral conduct but his
judgment, if it is to be right according to the objective moral law, must agree
with that law. A man, through blameless ignorance or confusion, may be mistaken
in the judgment that a particular act is right. Because of that blameless
ignorance or confusion he is excused from personal sin; none the less his
judgment is false and his action is wrong in itself. Hence the serious
obligation binding on every man to inform himself correctly, especially in the
Sacrament of Reconciliation, concerning what is objectively right and wrong, so
that, in his particular judgment, he may act only in agreement with the moral
law.
Our Divine Master has Himself established in His Church the
teaching Authority that, with full certainty, can declare, make clear and
defend the moral law. To observe that law, we need not merely knowledge but
grace that will sustain our weakness, in even the most difficult circumstances
of human life. That grace we can always obtain by humble prayer and by the
reception of the Sacrament in which we meet the Author of grace Himself. “Come
to Me,” He has urged, “and I will refresh you, for my yoke is sweet and my
burden light.”
May the Mother of God, by her most powerful intercession,
obtain for the Faithful of this Diocese, priests and lay folk, the signal grace
loyally to accept in all their life the doctrine of the moral law that the
Church unfailingly affirms.
I wrote previously in February,
Our faithful people continue to be assailed by public pleas for civil
divorce and contraception. Civil divorce is proposed as the right of minorities,
contraception is proposed as the right of married persons to control birth.
The words ‘right’ and ‘control’ lend a false appearance of reason and
morality but civil divorce is evil and contraception is evil. There cannot be,
on the part of any person, a right to what is evil. A right is the moral power
of a human person to do or to possess or to exact. Being a moral power, it can
be founded only in reason and in the objective moral law. Its purpose is to
give to the human person the moral power or authority freely to choose what
leads him securely to his final end, which is God. Civil divorce and
contraception are each a violation of the objective moral law, a very grave
offense against God, the Author of that law. Our faithful people, as by an
instinct of the Faith, grasp at once this truth and will be guided by the
Church which has been founded by Jesus Christ Himself to be the authentic
interpreter of the objective moral law.
And then again in March,
Confusion continues to be spread among our faithful people by the
frequent and inaccurate use of terms such as planned or responsible parenthood.
The natural use of marriage is not a merely animal act to which human beings
are driven by blind instinct. It is a reasonable human act to which, according
to the law of God the Creator, responsible human beings mutually consent. In
that sense, the natural use of marriage is planned and is responsible but, if
by planned is meant the spacing of births by contraception, then that use of
marriage is not in agreement with the law of God. It is not planned according
to the rational nature of man as such. It is not responsible for it is not a
deliberate act that, by its agreement with the law of God, assists man to reach
his final end.
By contraception is meant every action which, in anticipation of the
marriage act, or in the accomplishment of that act, or in the development of
the natural consequences of that act, proposes, either as an end or as a means,
to make procreation impossible.
Any such contraceptive act is always wrong in itself. To speak, then,
in this context, of a right to contraception on the part of an individual, be
he Christian or non-Christian or atheist, or on the part of a minority or a
majority, is to speak of a right that cannot even exist.
When one considers the use of marriage by Christians who have received
the Sacrament of Marriage, the natural use of marriage is not only a
reasonable, responsible and planned action; it is also a sanctified act that
can merit an increase of God’s grace and a reward in eternal life. This is the
authentic teaching of the Church, guardian, by Christ’s own appointment, of the
Sacrament of Matrimony.
Confusion is further being spread by an often inaccurate use of terms
such as private and public morality. The use of a contraceptive by an
individual person is an act that primarily concerns that person and as such is
a matter of private morality. Publicly to make contraceptives available is a
matter of public morality.
Given the proneness of our human nature to evil, given the enticement
of bodily satisfaction, given the widespread modern incitement to unchastity,
it must be evident that an access, hitherto unlawful, to contraceptive devices
will prove a most certain occasion of sin, especially to immature persons. The
public consequences of immorality that must follow for our whole society are
only too clearly seen in other countries.
When those who are elected to legislate for our society unfortunately
decide to pass a disastrous measure of legislation that will allow the public
promotion of contraception and an access, at one time unlawful, to the means of
contraception, they ought to know clearly the meaning of their action, when it
is judged by the norms of objective morality and the certain consequences of
such a law.
To add to the confusion, it is being suggested that our society ought
to be brought into line with the outlook of other countries. Hitherto, we have
endeavoured to legislate according to the established beliefs and standards of
our own people. One can conceive no worse fate for our society than that it
should, by the legislation of our elected representatives, be now made to
conform to the patterns of sexual conduct in other countries.
It is also being suggested that such uniformity of sexual outlook and
practice can, in some obscure way, assist the reunification of our country. One
must know little of the Northern people, if one can fail to realize the
indignant ridicule with which good Northern people would treat such an
argument. It would indeed be a foul basis on which to attempt to construct the
unity of our people.
It may well come to pass that, in the present climate of emotional
thinking and pressure, legislation could be enacted that will further offend the
objective moral law. Such measures would be an insult to our Faith; it would,
without question, prove to be gravely damaging to morality, private and public;
it would be and would remain, a curse upon our country.
Your faithful servant
in Christ,
+ JOHN CHARLES
Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland.
+ JOHN CHARLES
Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland.
If you click on the date link in the line directly above, you will find that in my version posted here some very minimal changes have been made to the text for the
sake of effect.
Further
reading on the subject of contraception in Canada...
No comments:
Post a Comment