columns!14 National Catholic Reporter

November 22, 1985

Conservatives, Uberals-y.<iue^Q^n4scMng.barqueBy GERMAIN and JEANNETTE

GRISEZ

CONSERVATIVES THINK that, although the contemporary world is indeep trouble, the church had no seriousproblems until Vatican II opened theliberals' Pandora's box. Liberals thinkthe church was behind the times untilVatican II started a long-overdue process of updating — which conservativesfrustrated. Both views, even in theirnuanced versions, could be wrong.

The really fundamental problem inthe church could be confusion aboutwhat Christians and Christian life are.Christians and Christian life have divine and human aspects. These oughtto be distinguished but not separated,united but not commingled. However,where Christians and Christian life areconcerned, the divine and human oftenare either compartmentalized orblended in ways orthodox faith and devotion long ago learned to avoid whereJesus and his life are concerned.

This situation is partly due to the influence of Greek philosophy on traditional theology and spirituality. All fallen human hearts are restless, becausesin and its consequences frustrate aspirations for natural human fulfillment;believing hearts also are restless, because the hopes God's promises arouseremain to be fulfilled. St. Augustineconfused these two real sources of restlessness with another, unreal rest-

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn professor of Christianethics at Mount St. Marys College, Em-mitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez is Germain's wife and collaborator:;

• u»' rS^,H1 *#* * }r%fiih\

lessness: that of a neo-Platonic heart,naturally akin to the divine, restless forunion with God. St. Thomas escapedneo-Platonism, but the concurrence ofAristotle with Augustine led him toposit a natural desire for the beatificvision.

Confusion between the Christian'shumanity and divinity generated un-

necessary tension between legitimateaspirations for human and this-worldlyfulfillment and God's call to divine andeverlasting life. This tension, togetherwith other factors, led to disrespect forthe "merely" human, and this disrespect fostered legalism in moral teaching and pastoral practice (human actsin themselves are not important),juridicism in ecclesial relationships(human communion in itself is not important) and formalism in liturgy(human experience and transformationin themselves are not'important).' f

These weaknesses took their toll inthe church as such and in individualChristians' lives. In modern times, theyprovoked increasingly intense reac-

h tions, in the name of.hun

spect, against Christianity. During thepast century, these reactions crystallized into8 various forms of secularhumanism, which have steadily gainedground against Jesus and his church.

Vatican II tried to answer this challenge. Gaudium et spes makes it clear;that Christian faith and life not onfy1are consistent with humanistic values,but also ^ demand their promotion;lChristians should serve secular andthis-worldly goods because these contribute to the heavenly fulfillment of allsthings in Jesus. This and other VaticanII documents work out this insight'smany practical implications, whichchallenge false other-worldliness, legalism,'juridicism and formalism/'

Yet, the two decades since Vatican IIhave brought the church unprecedented conflicts, betrayals and losses.Many factors'contributed to stuntingthe fruit ofVatican II: the depth of theproblems, institutional inertia in thechurch* the cultural'turmoil of the1960s, the influence of secular media ofcommunication on reflection and communication within the church, andwidespread compromises between theway of the Lord Jesus and alternativelife-styles.-• However, there is another,'widely ig

nored reason that Vatican1 IPs aftermath has been so disappointing to almost everyone. Pope John XXIII did notfully appreciate the challenge facing thechurch. Hid optimism created an overconfident atmosphere for the council.But the radical character of*the problems emerged. The council fathers encountered questions too vitaP to setaside but too undeveloped to resolve:

* *# [real consensus on these is-

sues, the council fathers should in honesty have stated them, acknowledgedboth their.inability to resolve them andthe urgency of doing so and planned apost-conciliar process to complete thiswork. Instead, they papered over theseproblems with ambiguous formulas.Thus, the seeds of the church's turmoilsince Vatican II were sown in the coun-cil's own flawed work.

Respect for Pope John and his eont^cilmade it almost impossible to rWmitwhat had happened. Thus, it was necessary on all sides to deny the real situation. Pretending that Vatican II hadsettled things, both conservatives andliberals immediately read their ownbiases into the council's documents, rejected the alternative reading as grossmisinterpretation and used politicalmeans to pursue dominance in thechurch for their views.

Neither John Paul II nor most otherbishops admit the depth and gravity ofthe church's current crisis. Their effortsto maintain the appearance of unityprevent them from facing up to the reality of division. Pseudo-solidarity alsoserves as cover for tireless ecclesiasticalpolitics, which is tearing the churchapart.

We should pray that the coming session of the synod will be the occasionfor the pope and other bishops to recognize the vanity ofecclesiastical politics,

"to admit that Vatican II was flawed andto begin facing up to the church's current extreme peril. Only the Lord Jesusand his Spirit can save the church, butthey will do it by the efforts of the pope,bishops and/or others — becausehuman acts in themselves really are im-

Cardinal Ratzinger's report may be too optimisticBy GERMAIN and JEANNETTEGRISEZ

MOST CRITICS ofThe Ratzinger Report consider Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger too pessimistic. But in some respects, he is too optimistic.

For example, he offers a simple explanation of theological dissent from received Catholic moral teaching: It iscompromise with the permissiveness ofsecular liberalism. So Ratzinger thinksthe "new" moral is geographically centered in the western hemisphere, especially in the affluent United States,where the replacement of traditionalmoral absolutes with a morality of consequences "is particularly developedand diffused" (page 90).

Again, the cardinal thinks that ingreat part the entire crisis in the churchsince Vatican II is due to misunderstandings and errors about what thechurch really is — namely, divinely constituted, sacramental and hierarchical."Only if this perspective is acquiredanew will it be possible to rediscoverthe necessity and fruitfulness of obedience to the legitimate ecclesiasticalhierarchies," he asserts (page 49). Theclear implication is that obediencewould correct most everything nowtroubling the church.

Finally, Ratzinger considers VaticanII itself entirely unproblematic. Conflicts have broken out since the council,

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn professor of Christianethics dt Mount St. Mary's College,Emmitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez isGermain's wife and collaborator.

12National Catholic ReporterDecember 27, 1985 .

but "Vatican II in its official promulgations, in its authentic documents, cannot be held responsible for this development" (page 30). The "true council" —as contrasted with the false "spirit ofthe council" — has the answers thechurch needs today. For Ratzinger,Vat-

1 ;.;• ¥M

ican II is "a base on which to build solidly" (page 34).

Would that it were so. For, then, PopeJohn Paul II might succeed in his effortto use Vatican II as cement to renewsolidarity among the hierarchy and asstimulus to renew obedience by othersto the hierarchy. But only the rosiest ofrose-colored glasses can conceal theruins of previous efforts, especially PaulVTs, to build up the church on VaticanH's foundations.

The trouble is that these foundationsare not solid. As soon as the councilbegan to break ground for its work, ituncovered unexpected obstacles —•layers of rock and large areas of seemingly bottomless quicksand. Not organized to deal with such obstacles, the"pastoral" council nevertheless laid outfootings, some ofwhich quickly crackedor even sank entirely out of sight.

Consider "collegiality." For the

"spirit of the council," it came to meanthat the church is becoming a democracy. But collegiality is unclear even inVatican H's authentic documents,where it refers exclusively to the constitutional relationships among thepope, other bishops and groups ofbishops. Does "collegiality" mean thata pope should never act unless he isquite sure he has most of the otherbishops with him? Or does it mean thatother bishops should rally round whena pope sees fit to act without their previous consensus, perhaps even despitetheir antecedent disagreement? Bothviews find support in Vatican H's authentic documents and in the conciliarprocess —.the struggle between thecouncil's factions, in which the pope wassometimes embroiled.

In 1968, Paul VI issued HumanaeVitae. He expected other bishops torally in support. Many did; some didnot. This situation made clear the ambiguity of collegiality. The division hasnot gone away, and it never will go awayby itself. Only a pope and the otherbishops, working together, will be ableto find the resolution. But that workcannot even begin until the current unsatisfactory situation is honestly admitted and squarely faced.

The question of obedience Ratzingerthinks is central also has far deeperroots than he admits. For a longer timebefore Vatican II than anyone then living could remember, stern disciplinehad maintained within the church theappearance of monolithic unity on allimportant matters of faith and morals.When debates in the council and therelaxation of discipline removed the illusion ofcomplete unity, an amazing de

f^u-V*^' •-&&•£&*«*&: '*•&%&££»£<-''•

: h* WaM>!

facto variety of incompatible views surfaced.

Some would like to reinstitute strictdiscipline. But discipline cannot resolvesubstantive issues and would merelytransform existing disagreements intoschisms. Others would like all the disagreeing views to be treated as legitimate. But such latitudinarianismwould leave the church with no unifiedmessage to preach and teach, no common theoretical base for service tohumankind and, ultimately, no identity. Limitless toleration is ideologicalAIDS, which makes its victims unableto resist even what will certainly destroy them.

Obedience to hierarchical authoritypresupposes unity in faith, and unityin faith is precisely what the Catholicchurch (as a human society accessibleto sociological inspection) no longer has.

As for the morality of consequencesRatzinger deplores, it has been expounded and increasingly widelyadopted by some believers and manynonbelievers throughout modern times.And recent theological dissent from received Catholic moral teaching owes farmore to several Germans — includingBernard Haring, Josef Fuchs and KarlRahner — than to any American.

The new moral probably can best beunderstood as an inept attempt to solvereal problems raised by certain inadequacies in classical Christian moraltheology and spirituality. But even ifits roots are not so deep as that, American culture has provided no more thana favorable climate for a set of opinionsof European origin. •

Synod endorses thrustofRatzinger ReportBy GERMAIN and JEANNETTEGRISEZ

IF ONE HAD to characterize JohnPaul II as liberal or conservative inrelation to Vatican II, one could say heis an unreconstructed preconciliarliberal. He called the extraordinarysession of the synod to turn the clockback, not, as some hoped and othersfeared, to Oct. 9, 1958 (when Pius XIIdied), but to Dec. 8,1965 (when VaticanII ended). Thus, in his Dec. 7 address

to the synod, the pope said the sessionhad been "necessary, indeed absolutelydemanded," so that its participantswould "express their judgment onVatican II in order to avoid divergentinterpretations."

The "Message of the Synod to thePeople of God" unqualifiedly reaffirmsVatican II as it was and sweeps asidethe view that it was the first stage ofacontinuing revolution: "In full adherence to the council, we see in it awellspring offered by the Holy Spirit tothe church, for the present and thefuture. We do not fix upon the errors,confusions and defects which, becauseof sin and human weakness, have beenthe occasion of suffering in the midst ofthe people of God. We firmly believe,and we see, that the church finds todayin the council the light and strengththat Christ has promised to give hisfollowers in each period of history"(emphasis added).

Influenced by the Ratzinger Report,the synod's message, addressed to "thepeople of God," goes on to speak of thechurch not under that title but as thebody of Christ and the mystery of thelove of God present to humanity — ascommunion with God through faith andsacraments. Thus, the synod emphasizes the church's transcendentdimension against populist readings ofVatican II. In this context, the council'smost original contribution (part one ofGaudium et Spes) is strikingly reformulated: "From Vatican II the church,received with certitude a new light: Thejoy and hope which come from God canhelp mankind already on this earth toovercome every sadness and anguish ifmen lift their gaze to the heavenly city0(emphasis added).

Similarly, the synod's final documentclearly and forcefully expresses theparticipants' consensus in solidaritywith the pope and endorses much ofthe

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn Professor of Christian,Ethics at Mount Saint Marys College,Emmitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez is ,Germain's wife and collaborator.

NationalCatholicReporterJanuary 24, 198GV wMt,

outlook expressed in the RatzingerReport. Vatican II is reaffirmedconservatively: "The council is alegitimate and valid expression of thedeposit of faith as it is found in sacredScripture and in the living tradition ofthe church" (I, 2). "It is not legitimateto separate the spirit and the letter ofthe council. Moreover, the council mustbe understood in continuity with thegreat tradition of the church" (I, 5).Again, the strategy of bending doctrinein pastoral practice is rejected (I, 5; II,B, 1).

Pluralism (toleration of fundamentally opposed positions) is condemned;pluriformity (minor differences amonglocal churches in communion withRome) is approved (II, C, 2). Soaggiornamento means "a missionaryopenness for the integral salvation ofthe world," which does not licensechurches in the wealthy nations tocompromise with secularism (II, D, 3).Moreover, inculturation is mainly aone-way street; it means that what ispositive in various cultures is to betransformed by integration intoChristianity (II, D, 4).

The synod's final document is lessoptimistic than Vatican II. The signs ofthe times Have changed for the worse(II, A, 1; II, D, 2). So the synod calls forrenewed emphasis on "the value, theimportance and the centrality of thecross ofJesus Christ" (II, D, 2). In otherwords: Toughen up; Christianity meanshard work, self-denial and suffering in

A .bsent fromthe synodaldocuments is anappreciation ofthe depth of thetrouble the Ichurch is in.

*.*i^

this life; its real payoffbegins only witnresurrection. ;

Absent from the synodal documents ,is an appreciation of the depth of the jtrouble the church is in. Vatican H's jdefects and inadequacies are un- jacknowledged. Radical theological ,dissent from traditional teaching onfaith and morals is virtually ignored.Hence, the synod's results offer littlehope that John Paul II and his fellowbishops are about to begin dealing moreeffectively with the constitutional crisisof collegiality, which has crippled theireffective.cooperation, or with theprofoundcrisesof faith that pervadethechurch. Amid its celebration, the synodneeded but lacked a small child toannounce the absence of some of the

icolumns!

THE SYNOD officially opens at St. Peter's Basilica.

wonderful garments everyone was admiring.

Still, two of the synod's suggestionsare interesting.

One is the consensus that "a catechism or compendium of all Catholicdoctrine regarding both faith andmorals be composed, that it might be,as it were, a point of reference for thecatechisms or compendiums that areprepared in the various regions" (II, B,4). Work on such a universal catechismhas been in progress almost since JohnPaul II became pope. Evidently, thisproject's time has come. The questionis whether, the pope will be able todevelop a wide and deep enoughconsensus among his fellow bishopsbehind his catechism to make it any

more effective than was Paul VI's"Credo of the People of God" as a toolfor dismissing conflicting teachings.

The other important suggestion isthat there be a study of the theologicalstatus and doctrinal authority ofepiscopal conferences (II, C, 8). Thatstudy just might begin to resolve theconstitutional crisis of collegiality.Conflicts between the Roman Curia andnational conference bureaucrats areonly symptoms of that crisis. Butperhaps a close look at the symptomswill draw attention to the deeper problems.

Who knows? Perhaps these twosuggestions are the seeds of VaticanIII. •

column-

Pastoral on economyneeds gospel radicalismBy GERMAIN and JEANNETTEGRISEZ

A THIRD DRAFT of the projectedU.S. bishops' pastoral on the economyis being prepared. We hope it will beless optimistic than previous drafts,more radical in its call for economic justice and more clearly addressed to a relevant audience.

the second draft drew an analogy between the democratic "American experiment" for protecting civiland politicalrights and a projected "new Americanexperiment" for securing economicrights—"anorder that guarantees the

minimum conditions of human dignityin the economic sphere forevery person"(No. 96).

The analogy is overly optimistic; itignores the fact that America'sexperiment in democracy usually had the supportofthe wealthyandpowerful, whoseinterests it secured, while any attemptto promote economic justice is sure tobeopposed by the wealthyandpowerfulwhose greed and status it will threaten.And people seeking election or reelection to federal offices need such vastamounts of money to carry on their campaignsthat they arenecessarily subservient to some ofthe wealthy and powerful — at least to well-organized interestgroups of the wealthy, suchas the bigunions.

The second draft points out some justgoals. It calls for expensive federal programstoeliminatedomestic unemployment, poverty and the failure of smallfarms, and to greatly increase foreigneconomic aid. But it offers no radicalproposals of ways the costs are to bemet. Current huge federal deficits arementioned, but the draft blandlysuggeststhat sometax reformsandcutsin defense spending could pay foreverything (No. 282).

A more radical approach would beginby recognizing current federal deficitsthemselves as a tremendous injustice.Government deficits now — when thereis no great emergency and debt repayment is in order — will be a cripplingburdenonlatergenerations. We arestealing fromthose unborn whom we are notkilling.

Tax reforms and closing loopholeswill be opposed by those in whose interests inequitable tax structures andloopholes have been created. Defensespending might well increase if theUnited States were to carry out the demand ofTheChallengeofPeaceto elimi-

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn professor of Christianethics at Mount Saint Marys College,Emmitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez isGermain's wife and collaborator.

nate NATO's threat of first use of nuclearweaponsin Europe. Fora crediblesubstitute for that threat would be avast buildup of conventional forces,whose great cost is the main reasonNATO has a policyof threatening to usenuclearweaponsagainstaconventionalSoviet attack.

Realistically, the U.S. governmentwill not balance its budget and pay forthe programs needed to pursueeconomic justice without vastly increasing taxes not only on the very wealthy,but also on the upper middle class.

The draft restates traditional Christian teaching that peoplewho have whatthey do not need owe it in justice tothose who lack necessities (No. 113). Italso cites the evidence that some peoplehave a great deal more than they need:"In 1983, 54 percent of the total net financial assets were held by two percentof all families" (No. 181). The principletogether with the facts point to a requirement in strict justice that most ofthe assets of the very wealthy be transferred to the very poor. But the draftnowhere draws this obvious conclusion,much less offers any radical proposal toimplement-what justice requires — forexample, by a new tax on the net worthof the wealthy, say of 20 percent a yearon anyone's net worth in excess of $1million.

Taxes on the poor deepen their poverty; taxes on the lower middle classpress them toward poverty and lessen _incentives both for them and the poor.Justice demands that those whose incomes are above the median shouldbearthe burden ofgovernment expenditures.

Political realism will rule out proposals for a confiscatory tax on the networth of the very wealthy and for muchheavier income taxes on the comfortably well-off. But the bishops shouldteach these requirements of justiceclearly to those who take seriously theirauthority to speak in, Jesus' name.Thus, although the exploitative structures of our unjust society will blockgovernmental action for economicjustice, at least we Catholics who havemore than we need might be moved individually to transfer our excess wealthto those who lack necessities, and soescapethe fateofDives.Bishopsshouldbe concerned to keep their people outof hell. ;

But the second draft seems to be addressed mainly to government officials,most of whom are practical nonbeliev-ers, with no respect forGod's word andepiscopal authority. To them thebishops ought to address not a detailedinstruction about the requirement ofeconomic justice, but the basic messageof the Gospel. For they need to repentand believe.

If the eventual pastoral on the economy is like the second draft, it willhave only a mild political effect — tosupport liberal Democrats in 1987-1988. But liberal Democrats are notmore interested in justice than right-wing Republicans. Both get rid of poverty by getting ridof poorpeople. Right-wing Republicans leave them to starve;liberal Democrats prefer to kill them,currently by subsidized abortions, eventually by other implementations of theconstitution's "right of privacy."•

NationalCatholic Reporter A OFebruary 14, 1986. **0

column^

Communal confession easy,but what about the sins?By GERMAIN and JEANNETTEGRISEZ

IN HIS DECEMBER 1984 post-synodal apostolic exhortation on "Reconciliation and Penance in the Missionof the Church Today," Pope John PaulII once more tried to stop the abuse ofgeneral absolution. General absolution,the pope explains, is permissible onlyin cases of grave necessity. It shouldnot become an ordinary form. When itis given in an emergency situation,those who receive it must be prepared

to confess all their sins when they havea chance — definitely before they receive general absolution again.

Nevertheless, in many places in theUnited States, people continue to be invited to come to communal penance services, where absolution is given everyone present without any individ-ual confession of sins. In some places,couples whoare divorced and civilly remarried, as well as others with habitsof grave sin and no purposeof amendment, are explicitly encouraged to participate in such communal penance services.For such persons, the general absolution cannot possibly be valid andfruitful.

Perhaps some pastors are abusinggeneral absolution because they are toolazy to administer the sacrament properly. But we suspect most of those whouse this form when there is no gravenecessity for it mean well and thinkthey are helping the faithful.

But are they?A certain physician, Dr. Kindly, al

ways treated his patients in a warmand friendly manner, and they all likedhim. One day John Jones came to Dr.Kindly, complaining of pains in hischest. The doctor made a thoroughexamination and found a suspiciouslump in John's breast. He sent John forfurther tests and a biopsy.

When the results came back, Dr.Kindly's worst fears were confirmed:John had breast cancer, which is rareand usually fatal in men. With greatsadness, Dr. Kindly prepared to giveJohn the bad news. His only hope layin radical chest surgery, harsh chemotherapy and castration. But whenDr. Kindly began to talk with his patient, it became clear that John also already suspected the worst, was veryanxious about his condition and did notwish to hear the grave diagnosis andsevere plan of treatment.

"Come on, Doc," John pleaded, "I just

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn professor of ChristianEthics at Mount St. Mary's College,Emmitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez isGermain's wife and collaborator.

need something for these chest pains.Can't you give me a prescription forsome pain killers to help me over thenext few weeks?"

Feeling great sympathy for John, Dr.Kindly thought, "This patient isn'tready to hear the bad news. Perhaps hewill be in a few weeks, Anyway, maybeby then he'll have a spontaneous remission and get well without the surgery,chemotherapy and castration. After all,miracles still do happen."

So Dr. Kindly gave John the prescription he wanted. John got it filled at once,took the pain killers religiously and fora while felt much better. However, before long, John's condition worsenedand the pain became unbearable. Hesought treatment, but it was too late.Dr. Kindly came to John's funeral andcried more than anyone else.

Another man, Sam Smith, went to Dr.Severe with similar complaints. Dr. Severe was not by nature a warm andfriendly person. Her patients didn't likeher much, but they respected her competence and appreciated her carefultreatment of their ills. Dr. Severe'sexamination ofSam Smith and the testsshowed that Sam also had breastcancer, and that the same plan of treatment was indicated.

Dr. Severe knew that Sam would notwant to hear the bad news and wouldnot easily accept the required treatment. So when she met with the patient, pr^Severe made4a special effort^to oe warm ancl Friendly!to explain thefacts as gently as possible and to putthe situation into the most optimisticlight. Yet Sam also pleaded for a prescription for pain killers.

Dr. Severe refused and insisted thatSam enter the hospital at once to bereadied for surgery. Only as part of thatplan of treatment would pain-relievingdrugs be administered. Sam very reluctantly accepted the diagnosis and planof treatment.

Fortunately, it was successful, andevery trace of cancer was eliminated.Even so, Sam was depressed at firstabout the price he'd had to pay for hissurvival. Dr. Severe helped him to adjust and begin life anew. Eventually,Sam came to see that, although not theman he once was, he is no less a personwith a life to live and be thankful for.When Dr. Severe dies, Sam will go toher funeral.

Now, which of these physicians istruly merciful? Is Dr. Kindly or Dr. Severe more like the compassionateJesus? Well, then, what sort of pastorsdoes the church need — Father Kindlysor Father Severes?

Father Severes try to make peoplerealize how deep they are in sin andhow much they need to repent. Unlessthere is a real emergency, they do notadminister general absolution withoutindividual confession. For they knowthat helping people who are not reallyrepentant to feel forgiven is to do themthe gravest possible harm.

Father Kindlys encourage peoplewho have no purpose of amendmentto come to communal penance services.They administer general absolutionwithout individual confession. And soFather Kindlys send people away feeling somewhat better — to die in theirsins. •

National Catholic Reporter "g WMarch 21, 1986

icolumns;

Let dissidents on abortionshape up orbe shippedoutBy GERMAIN andJEANNETTE GRISEZ

WE BELIEVE THAT, no matter whatthe law says, the intentional (sometimes called "direct") killing of an innocent human being, including an embryoor fetus by abortion, morally is alwaysobjectively gravely wrong. Lack of sufficient reflection and/or full consent can

mitigate or even prevent the guilt ofsin, but nothing can ever make suchkilling a "lesser evil" and justify the actconsidered in itself.

We think any Catholic who is well-instructed, informed about the relevantfacts, clearheaded and faithful mustagree with us. For whatever the Cath

olic church believes and teaches univer

sally as an essential moral requirementfor Christian life pertains to faith andis infallibly taught, even without a solemn definition. For a long time beforecurrent differences ofopinion arose, theconditions for infallible teaching plainly

..were metbyjreceived Catholicteaching'on killing in general and abortion inparticular.

Oct. 7,1984, 97 people subscribed toan ad in the New York Times that included as its foundation the following:"Statements of recent popes and theCatholic hierarchy have condemned thedirect termination of prenatal life asmorally wrong in all instances. Thereis the mistaken belief in American society that this is the only legitimate Catholic position. In fact, a diversity ofopinions regarding abortion exists amongcommitted Catholics: A large number ofCatholic theologians hold that even direct abortion, though tragic, can sometimes be a moral choice." Church au

thorities tried to discipline some of thesigners.

About 1,000 people subscribed to afollow-up ad, New York Times, March2, saying: "We affirm our solidarity withall Catholics whose right to free speechis under attack." The ad mentions the

attempted disciplinary actions, andgoes on: "Such reprisals cannot be condoned or tolerated in church or society.We believe that Catholics who, in goodconscience, take positions on the difficult questions of legal abortion andother controversial issues that differfrom the official hierarchical positions act within their rights and responsibilities as Catholics and citizens."

Believing what we do about abortionand thinking as we do about Catholicteaching on killing the innocent, wehold that the only legitimate positionregarding abortion is the "officialhierarchical position." Those who do not

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn Professor of ChristianEthics at Mount St. Mary's College, Em-mitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez is Germain's wife and collaborator.

agree with it really ought to shape upor honestly admit they have alreadyshipped out.

Moreover, the right of free speech isnot at stake here. That right is a civilliberty against governments. It gives noright to children to tell their parentsthey are stupid, Ford employees to publish ads urging potential customers toprefer Chevrolets or Catholics to rejectwhat the Catholic church believes andteaches.

Nevertheless, we confess feeling itisn't quite evenhanded to try to discipline those who subscribed to the 1984ad. It's too much like the IRS's handlingof tax cheats. Small cheaters are forcedto pay every cent with interest andpenalties; big cheaters, whom the government doesn't want to take on incourt, receive negotiated settlementsand often come out better than if theyhad paid their taxes as everyone should.Similarly here: Church authorities tryto discipline signers of the 1984 Timesad, while the theologians who dissentin a more important way get away withit.

For example, as long ago as 1973,Father Charles E. Curran wrote inNewPerspectives in Moral Theology that"there is a sizable and growing numberofCatholic theologians who do disagreewith some aspects of the officially proposed Catholic tteaching that directabortion from the time of conception isalways wrong" (page 193). Curran personally held that "abortion could be justified to save the'life of the.mother oito avert very grave psychological orphysical harm to the mother with therealization that this must truly be graveharm that will perdure over some timeand not just a temporary depression"(page 191). Yet Curran still teachesmoral theology to future priests andtheologians in the pontifical faculty oftheology of the Catholic University ofAmerica.

But if it is inappropriate to disciplinesome who draw out implications oftheological dissent while tolerating thatdissent itself, what should church authorities do? We think the pope andother bishops should make it unmistakably clear to dissenting theologians thatthey are gravely confused and to thosewho follow dissenting theological opinions that they have been terribly misled. How can this be done?

The pope and other bishops togethershould examine thoroughly the theological cases for both sides. We are confident that if they do, they will judge thatthe dissenting theological opinions notonly are theories inconsistent withCatholic faith but licenses to kill, contrary to Christian love of neighbor.Then, with the advice and support ofthe other bishops, the pope can solemnly define two propositions: "The intentional killing of an innocent humanbeing is always a grave matter," and"Every human organism, regardless ofits age or condition, ought to be presumed to be a human being."

Once these propositions were defined, all Catholics, theologians included, would have a clear choice: toshape up by professing their faith inwhat the Catholic church has alwaysbelieved and taught about killing, or toship out by admitting their position isalien to Catholic faith and far from theway of the Lord Jesus. •

National Catholic Reporter -g "gMay 2, 1986 X X

icolumns'

Divining the moraldilemma ofdissent

By GERMAIN andJEANNETTE GRISEZ

SOME TRY to justify dissent from thechurch's constant and very firm moralteaching. They correctly note that thechurch has solemnly defined very littlein the moral field. They go on to arguethat, because a noninfallible teachingcould be mistaken, dissent from anysuch teaching is permissible. They conclude that Catholics may dissent fromall or almost all of the church's moralteachings.

This argument is doubly unsound. In

the first place, it rests on the assumption that whatever is not solemnly defined is not infallibly taught. However,both Vatican I and Vatican U, make it

"clear that the ordinary rti¥gisteriumalso teaches infallibly when it universally proposes one and the same position on a matter of faith or morals as atruth—revealed or closely related to revelation—to be held definitively (VaticanI, Dei filius, DS 3011/1792; VaticanII, Lumen gentium, 25). Thus, if thewhole Catholic church has in the pastproposed some moral norm as one oftheessential requirements ofChristian life,then the church today must accept andteach that moral norm as certainly true.Although not solemnly defined, suchmoral teachings cannot now be brushedaside as noninfallible and possibly erroneous.

In the second place, even if it is uncertain whether the ordinary magisteriumhas infallibly taught some of the moraltruths the faithful are asked to hold definitively, then still such teachings willreceive the assent and practical acceptance ofevery faithful Catholic (Lumengentium, 25). For whatever the churchteaches as certain on moral questionsvery probably does pertain to divine revelation more or less directly. If a particular norm—for example, one regarding some new question—is not now infallibly taught, eventually it might wellbe, although possibly with some development and refinement no one canforesee today.

In seeking to minimize the body ofteaching to which Catholics must assent, the argument that tries to defendthe permissibility ofdissent also manifestsa legalistic outlook, according to whichmoral norms should be interpreted asnarrowly as possible so that obligationswill be minimized.

Germain Grisez Is the Reverend

Harry J. Flynn Professor of ChristianEthics at Mount St. Mary's College, Em-mitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez is Germain's wife and collaborator.

In reality, like the whole Gospel, ofwhich Christian moral norms are an integral part, the church's moral teachingis a splendid light, which believers shouldwelcome with open hearts. -Those whowelcome this light and wish to live in itdo not approach Catholic moral teachinglooking for some loophole or excuse to setit aside. Hence, they are not primarilyconcerned with technical considerationsabout whether a particular norm hasbeen proposed infallibly.

Because moral norms are a body oftruths, the church proposes her moralteachings, just as she does other truthsof faith, primarily by stating and explaining them, rather than by providingextrinsic motives for accepting them.The church's pastors exhort the faithfulto live the truth in love. But such exhortation is not an extrinsic motive. Moraltruths simply cannot be enforced directly, as laws can be, by disciplinarymeasures.

Therefore, just as a teacher in a classroom prefers to avoid disciplinary measures, the church's magisterium prefersto answer challenges to Christian moraltruths by listening attentively and offering, further explanations. Moreover,the magisterium respects the propercompetence of moral theologians andre^ognwes.theu- need to investigate difficult questions and share their findingswith colleagues.

Nevertheless, when faced with dissenting theological opinions that areproposed to the faithful for practical application, the magisterium, like anyteacher, can be forced to resort to theminimum of discipline that is absolutely essential to protect the integrityof the teaching office itself.

Some have argued: Because someCatholic theologians have dissentedfrom moral teachings reaffirmed by themagisterium, and this dissent has beentolerated, the duty of religious assentthat Vatican II teaches (Lumen gentium,25) is no longer binding. From this, theyfurther conclude that dissent has become a legitimate practice for theologians in their relation to the magisterium and that dissenting opinions maybe followed in practice.

Confronted with this argument, afterhaving repeatedly reaffirmed *andclearly explained moral teachings fromwhich some dissent, the magisteriumhasnochoice but to take some disciplinary measures. Otherwise, by permitting those who dissent to misinterprettoleration of their acts as approval oftheir opinions, the magisterium itselfwould be expressly teaching one thingbut tacitly teaching another.

The minimum disciplinary measureis to make it clear when persistent dissent is incompatible with someone'sbeing a Catholic theologian. Makingthis clear in a single case is a way ofteaching everyone where the boundaries lie. Nor is the magisterium unjustin using one case of dissent as an exam- jpie, forthe declaration concerning that !case clarifies what really is true aboutit. As a form of teaching, that clarification applies equally to anyone who persists in holding the same erroneousopinions. •

National Catholic Reporter -g fi*June 6, 1986 19

Theology within HfarmrWtfp^gffi^ ,-'«4t^**"^'^"T|«'*' ••-. >*T

By GERMAINE and. JEANNETTE GRISEZ

IN DEFENDING Charles Curran inparticular and theological dissent ingeneral {America, April 5), Richard A.McCormick relies heavily, as he has inthe past, on the authority oftheologianswho agree with him: "If CardinalJoseph Ratzinger's letter were to beapplied to theologians throughout theworld, it is clear that the vast majoritywould not qualify as Catholic theologians, for, as a matter of record, mosttheologians have found it impossible toagree with the central formulation ofHumanae Vitae. Again, "It is generallyadmitted by theologians that thechurch's authentic teaching on concretemoral behavior does not, indeed cannot,fall into the category of definible doctrine." Against this claimed consensus,McCormick admits only, There is a re-

v cent tiny pocket of resistance."On the issues that divide Curran,

McCormick and those who share theirviews from Pope John Paul II andRatzinger, we agree with John Paul andRatzinger. In this, we are not justagreeing with church authorities againsttheologians. John Paul and Ratzingeralso are able theologians, and we thinkthat they, and the many theologianswho agree with them, have a case far

y better than that of Curran, McCormick and other dissenting theologians.But dissenting theologians habitually

Germain Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn Professor of ChristianEthics at Mount St Mary's College,Emmitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez isGermaine's wife and collaborator.

14 National Catholic ReporterJuly 4, 1986

ignore arguments against their views.They prefer theological bootstrappingto serious debate of the issues.

In The Way ofthe Lord Jesus: Christian Moral Principles, which we pre

pared with the help of eight coworkersand published more than two years ago,,we devoted three entire chapters (6,35and 36) and parts ofothers to a critiqueof the theological principles shared bydissenting moralists. Virtually everything McCormick and other dissentingtheologians are saying in defense ofCurran finds its answer in the case wemake. But not one of them has tried todeal with that case. Until they do, itseems plain that they prefer to avoid adebate they know they cannot win.

Moreover, the dissenting theologians'appeal to their own consensus is notonly evasive, but also exaggerated.When McCormick claims a "vast majority" on their side and refers to the opposition as a "tiny pocket of resistance,"he belies his own earlier description ofthe situation. Writing in 1984 of thosewho support the Holy See's defense ofCatholic teaching, he said, "There aregrowing numbers ofreactionary theolo

gians who support this type of thingwith insistence on a verbal conformitythat is utterly incredible to the modern — and, I would add, open — mind"(Theological Studies, vol. 45, p. 84). Wedislike McCormick's adjectives, butwere pleased by his unguarded admission that dissenting theologians confront substantial theological opposition.

The week after McCormick's articleappeared in America, we participatedin an international congress on moraltheology (Rome, April 7-12). The timingwas a coincidence; the congress was inpreparation for two years. Because itwas planned as a celebration of moraltheology loyal to the church's teachingauthority, Curran, McCormick and• their friends were not invited to theparty. So ifthey are the "vast majority,"then the congress was the "tiny pocket

;of resistance." •But it wasn't so tiny. Students and

;spectators aside, those taking seriouspart in the work of the congress camefrom more than 20 countries and included more than 100 Catholic scholars — priests and layfolk, women andmen — people with higher degrees,academic chairs and important publica-tionsT Many other like-minded scholarswho were invited could not come because of other duties or the trip's cost.

The title of Germaine's paper was*The Definability of the Proposition:The Intentional Killing of an InnocentHuman Being Is Always Grave Matter'." Although McCormick claims that

;theologians generally, with only a "tinypocket of resistance," reject the principle underlying this thesis, participants

<in th3 congress, without exception soiar as we could tell, agreed that the prop

osition already is infallibly taught andcould be defined.

John Paul also received the congressin a special audience April 10. In hisaddress (English UOsservatore Romano,April 28), the pope rejected the propor-tionalist theory according to which allspecific moral norms admit exceptions;he reaffirmed that there are absolutemoral truths, for example, "the normthat prohibits contraception or thatwhich forbids the direct killing of aninnocent person." He said that to appealto a "faith of the church — the so-called sensus fidelium — against thechurch's teaching office "is equivalentto denying the Catholic concept of revelation." The pope insisted that thechurch's moral teaching is not just oneopinion, even an especially authoritative opinion, among others: "It enjoysthe charisma veritatis certum? that is,the certain gift of truth — a phraseIrenaeus used to refer to what is nowcalled "infallibility."

Participants in the congress applaudedJohn Paul long and enthusiastically.This response so warmed the pope'sheart that he greeted individuallyevery one of the hundreds at the audience. Subsequent discussion in the lobbies of the congress made it clear thatthese theologians' consensus — so faras we could tell, unanimous — is be-h?Sd the positions thepope blocked out.

McCormick's "vast majority^is not sovast after all. The "tiny pocket of resistance" contains a sizable and toughcorps. The dissenting theologians arewise taavoid serious confrontations. •

•\* .^rVVI

Liberal feminism equals church suicide

f

By GERMAINE and JEANNETTEGRISEZ

CHURCHLEADERS arebeginningtbrespond — better late than never — to *the various issues raised by contemporary women's movements. But we hopethey'll avoid the mistake of letting theorganized movements define all the issues. For these movements, includingthe most extreme of them, are liberalrather than radical. Except for the rectification of some blatant economic in

justices, their successes areWorseningrather than bettering the situation ofwomen in the contemporary world andthe post-Vatican Hchurch. • |§

That is the thesis of Mary RoseraJoyce in her remarkable compact book,Women and Choice: A New Beginning(LifeCom, Box 1832, St. Cloud, MN56302, $7.95). She points out that, thusfar,women's movements have proceededon assumptions loaded with the masculine biases ofour culture. Such biasesare hard to avoid, because Western secular humanism is dominated by masculineconcernsforachievement, liberty,and justice to the virtual exclusion ofmore typically feminine concernsaboutawareness, wholeness and sharing^;

Egalitarians who think the differences between men and women have nogreater human and Christian significance than the differences among theraces will not like Joyce's argument. Weourselves don't agree with everythingshe says. But much ofit rings true, andher sort of feminism is fresh and radicalenough to deserve careful consideration.

Many women still devote their lives tothe traditional roles ofwife, mother andhomemaker. For our own part, we're

%

Germaine Grisez is the ReverendHarry J. Flynn Professor of ChristianEthics at Mount Saint Mary's College, CEmmitsburg, Md. Jeannette Grisez is &Germaine's wifeandcollaborator. $

12National Catholic ReporterAugust 15, 1986

convinced that Jeannette's activities inthese roles have been not only fulfillingfor her but every bit as valuable inthemselves as anything else either ofushas done during our life together. Butliberal feminism, sometimes despite itself, regularly devalues such activities.Joyce avoids that mistake.

Church leaders would be wise to payattention to her. Religious women, lesbians and wives who don't want to bemothers are not going to carry the nextgeneration ofChristians home from thebaptismal font. Consequently, a strategy making concessions to the demandsof these groups at the expense ofwomenwho devote their lives to the traditionalroles will only contribute to the church'sdecline. The church is dying out quicklyenough without adopting so obviouslysuicidal a policy.

Clericalism still cripples the Catholic

church. Individual bishops and priestssometimes personally show the spirit ofservice to which Jesus called the apostles. But the clergy as club, in its structure and institutional patterns of behavior, is self-engrossed, self-servingand overbearing. Women, not leastwomen religious, have suffered greatlyunder the hegemony ofthe clerical club.Naturally, they want rectification andrestitution, if not retribution and revenge.

However, the clerical club also mis

treats laymen and boys. Only a fewpriests are pederasts, but the clericalclub stands condemned for toleratingand sheltering those who are, and manyothers degenerate to a lesser degree orM.in other ways. A still more effeminate •church we don't need.

But that is exactly what we are likely,to get ifchurch leaders respond to salutary anticlericalism — which reaD^Ifrightens them—by making conces-fsions to the organized group' offfeminists. For these groups, whether];made up of women religious or others, vare simply female counterparts of th(B|clerical club. Their liberal feminism ik^crypto-clericalism. ;*?}'.

The clerical club's strongest instinct]is its self-protection. And so any conces-isions it is likely to make to liberal^feminism will surrender nothing of its1-own but, instead, will lead to reverae fdiscrimination against lay males. (Well|have altar girls instead ofaltar boys -§5that sort of thing.) That will onl^ffurther alienate Catholic laymen andboys.' .. ;'._,- "" ; .^H

By contrast, the renewal demanded^by Joyce's radical feminism would eafihance the status of males who are not.iclerics no less than that of females in the]";church. Rather than merely making*a;few placating concessions to their;female auxiliaries, members ofthe clerical club could begin to reform their own*institutional arrangements accordingto sounder conceptions of men, womenand their relationships than those that!have prevailed—and still prevail^today—in Catholic seminaries. '**sfj

Joyce doesn't deal explicitly with thequestion of women's ordination. How-;ever, her views plainly lend no supportto it. Perhaps she thinks, as we do, thatwhere feminist theologians have gonebeyond the question-begging assertionthat women have the right to ordination, their arguments have turned intoa reductio to absurdity. • •' *

National Catholic Reporter "fl €KAugust 15, 1986 lU

columns!

Is the church greaterthan sum ofits parts?

ByGERMAINEandJEANNETTE GRISEZ

THE SYNOD of bishops last Decembercalled for a study to see whether the principle of subsidiarity can be applied to thechurch, and ifso, how and to whatextent.

Pope Pius XI articulated this principleas part ofthe church's social teaching. Itsbasis is that because political societiesand large economic organizations havetheir origin and end in individual persons, these societies should serve persons, whose well-being must not become

a mere means to social goals. Therefore,social activities are only subsidiary —that is, a help to the lives ofthe individuals and small groups that make up the social body, not a substitute for them. Theprinciple follows: What individuals andsmall groups can do forthemselves, using

^ their own abilities aHdreaotirc^fshouldnot be taken over by larger social units.

Pius XII, addressing the cardinals(Feb. 20,1946), said the principle is validfor social life generally, including thechurch's life. But he added: "without prejudice to her hierarchical structure."JohnPaul II, also addressing the cardinals(June 28), elaborates on Pius XII's qualification of subsidiarity in the church:"Nor must the nature of the primacy ofthe Roman pontiffbe compromised.''

People who prefer the ideas and decisions of their pastor to those of theirbishop, or those of their bishop to those ofRome, or those of their bishop to those ofthe leadership of the Catholic bishops'conference, or those of the national conference to those of Rome, are likely to bestrong (but probably not consistent) proponents of subsidiarity in the church.People whose preferences run in the opposite direction are likely to be its strong(but not consistent) opponents. We thinkboth sides would do well to forget ecclesiastical politics, remember the underlying values and try to work out a coherent position they can apply consistently.

We don't yet have such a position,only some ideas moving toward one.

The qualification added by Popes Piusand John Paul can easily be interpretedas an attempt to closely control subsidiarity in the church. Yet rejection of theirqualification would be a revolution challenging the church's constitution. Sofocusing debate on this qualification issure to polarize it along the usual lines ofecclesiastical politics, and such a debateis sure to be fruitless. Hence, we thinkdiscussion should begin with considera-

Germain Grisez is the Reverend HarryJ. Flynn Professorof Christian Ethics atMount St Mary's College, Emmitsburg,Md Jeannette Grisez is Germain's wifeand collaborator.

tions other than those bearing directly onthe church's hierarchical constitution.

One such consideration is the radicaldifference between the church as a society andpolitical-economic societies. Aristotle thought the common good of political society is greater and more godlikethan the good of its members, but bothliberal democratic political philosophyand Catholic social teaching challengeAristotle's view. They agree that the common good of political-economic societiesis only a set of conditions and instrumentalities for the full-being of persons: public peace, liberty, products, services andso forth.

The church's common good is the interpersonal communion in which its members share, and this good is an aspect oftheir intrinsic full-being as persons. Indeed, insofar as the church is the incipient heavenly kingdom, the church'seucharistic life is its members' supremegood and the principle of all their othergoods: Seek first the kingdom, and therest will be added.

Thus, insofar as the church is the bodyof Christ, its members do have their ori*gin and end in it, not vice versa. Aristotle's dictum, false of political society, istrue of the church: The flourishing ofthewhole Christ is greater and more godlike than the human flourishing and holinessofhismeinbers.^^^ •**--w,

This consideration, we think, precludes any straightforward application ofthe principle of subsidiarity in thechurch. But it by no means follows that~ideas and decisions in the church shouldalways come down from above.

The most important reason why not isthat the church's relationship to its members is absolutely unlike that of any othersociety. The ecclesial communion that isthe common good of the whole churchis not realized only in the church universal, but also in dioceses, parishes, religious communities, families and so on.Thus, while the church's membersshould subordinate themselves to it asparts to a whole, the church's wholenessmust not be identified with what is universally common in it. The church'swholeness also is in all its diversity.

Moreover, while unity in beliefand action is vital for the church's work ofevangelization, which is crippled by dissent and division, much ofthat work canonly be done or is surely done better ifconsiderable scope is allowed for initiatives and adaptations at rather lowlevels. Probably this consideration is thestrongest reason Rome should leavemany matters to national conferences.Yet national conferences plainly aremerely a functional institution, notchurches, as dioceses and parishes andfamilies are.

Finally, because members of thechurch are sanctified only by activelysharing in its life and work, more generaland intense participation by churchmembers is inherently valuable. But participation is discouraged by centralization. This consideration suggests thereshould be the greatest possible scope forinitiatives and decisions at the lowest

possible levels — the parish, the familyand the particularreligiouscommunity. • ~

National Catholic Reporter *g PJSeptembers, 1986 JL f

Will Modernist-traditionalist debate abate?By GERMAIN

"and JEANNETTE GRISEZ

3 MANY CATHOLICS — call them "tra-'r ditionalists" but do not confuse them with

the followers of Archbishop Marcel Le-febvre — approve and support the policiesPope John Paul II and Cardinal JosephRatzinger are followingin dealing with dis-

, senting theologians and theological issuesJ on which there are conflicts inthe church.'̂ Others — call them "modernists'' — disapprove and object to the Holy See's^policies.% What fundamental issue divides traditionalists from modernists? We do notgbelieveit is any particular moral question,

:f%uch asthe permissibility ofmasturbation„ or abortion, or even any general question! 6fecclesiology, such as the authority of the^church's teaching and the limits oflicit dis-

Cgent We think the fundamental issue concerns the nature of faith itself.

^Traditionalist Catholics thinkthatindi-fviduals can have faith onIy~by sharing in^fiie church's faith and that the church'sWaith can beidentified byofficial acts ofthe| church's leaders. Such Catholics think^Jtheir faith embraces an objectively given^nd publicly accessible divine revelation.

Although allowing for some development,thfeyhold that revelation was completed in

>>$he public life, death and Resurrection of1- Jesus and appropriated in all its essentials

by the apostles before they died.& ^Modernist Catholics think that indi-f yiduals-have faith as an unmediated di-ivirie gift and that the church's faith sumsfvp the faithful's consensus.They thinkoffi-Adal actsof the church's leaders shouldar-vnculate and be governed by that coiisen-. ;sus. They think that divine revelation isr not objectively given and publicly accessi

ble,but rather that it is in religious experi-* iu« .

^MGermain Grisez is the Reverend Harry|gj, Flynnprofessor of Christian ethics at~Mount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg,^Md. Jeannette Grisez is Germain's wife%ndcollaborator.

10National Catholic ReporterOctober 10, 1986

ence and conscientious judgments. Theythink that revelation is only imperfectlysymbolized in Scripture and traditionaldogmas and that it is a continuing process,responsive to contemporary needs and opportunities.

The difference between traditionalistsand modernists is manifested in arguments about the authority of the church'steaching and the legitimacy of dissent.

\ .'£.

Traditionalists argue that, because thewhole hierarchyhas in the past proposedcertain moral norms as essential requirements of Christian life, the church todaymust continue to teach these moral normsas certainly true. Modernists argue that,because many Catholics today no longer

, find these moral norms acceptable, theirview — based on their "Christian experience'' and manifestinga sensus fidelium—must be approved, and the church's "cur--rcnt official teaching" must change. Traditionalists cite magisterial documents;modernists cite publicopinion polls.-Traditionalists will point out that the

modernist's position was considered andsolemnly rejected by Vatican I. (The relevant document is notVatican Fs teachingon papal primacy and infallibility, but itsteaching on divine revelation.) Modernistswill not be impressed, for they considerVatican Fs teaching outdated and nolonger relevant to today's world.

Modernists will point out that the

NationalCatholic ReporterOctober 10, 1986 15

traditionalist's position has been considered and found wanting by the vast majority of theologians since 1800, beginningwith FriedridrSchleiermacher. Traditionalists will not be impressed, for they findabsolutely no ground in revelation (as theyunderstand it) for the modernist position.Moreover, traditionalists think that arguments against church teaching that aredrawn from sources independent of faithare simply expressions ofnonbelief, and sothey consider them ofno theological consequence.

The controversy.among Catholics between traditionalists and modernists didnot arise in 1968 over Humanae Vitae.Rather, it arose about 1900, was suppressed by Pope Pius X, went underground and burst into the open againduring Vatican II. Moral issues concerning sex and innocent life have been the occasion and vehicle ofthe controversy, butthose issues would have been resolvedlong since had they not been symptoms ofthe far more fundamental division.

It remains to be seen whether theCatholic church has within, herself resources to overcome the division over rev-elation and faith that has permanentlydivided Jews and Protestants. Historymakes it clear the hopes ofboth sides thatthe other will simply fade away are vain.

One thing seems clear to us: The constitution of the Catholic church, considered not theologically but simply from asociological point of view, precludes anyresolution of the conflict based on compromise or mutual tolerance — live and ..letlive. So long asthereisatraditionalist 1pope, whether John Paul II or any succes- isor, modernists will be illegitimate, no ''matter how numerous and articulatethey may be. However, if ever there werea modernist pope, traditionalism wouldipso facto have been definitively falsified,and erstwhile traditionalist Catholicswould have nowhere to go.

We, ofcourse, do not expect that to happen soon. Indeed, we do not expect it tohappen ever. •

There maybe hell to pay if rich don't share their wealthByGERMAIN ANDJEANNETTE GRISEZ

COMPARED WITH most peoplewho have ever lived, those whowrite and read columns such as

this are rich. For most people lack thefood, clothing, shelter, education andmedical care required to live minimallydecent lives. But we enjoy luxuries undreamed of even by the wealthiest members of societies such as the Israel ofJesus' time.

Jesus calls the poor "blessed" andpromises them the kingdom (Luke 6:20)."But woe to you that are rich, for youhave received your consolation" (Luke6:24). The parable of the rich man andLazarus shows that the wealthy can sinsimply by not using their wealth rightly.The rich man lives in luxury; on hisdoorstep, Lazarus dies in poverty.

Jesus teaches how hard it is for the richto enter the kingdom: "It is easier for acamel to go through the eye of a needle"(Luke 18:25). Commenting, John L.

Germain Grisez is the Reverend HarryJ. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics atMount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg,Md. Jeannette Grisez is Germain's wifeand collaborator. __. ._..„. ,

12National Catholic ReporterJanuary 16, 1987

McKenzie says, "While this saying contains hyperbole, it can scarcely meananything but moral impossibility; Jesusmakes wealth an insuperable obstacle tosalvation and offers no solution of the dif

ficulty except that one should give awayone's riches" (Dictionary of the Bible).Why should that be so? If for no otherreason, because poverty is so widespreadand the needs ofthe poor so pressing thatto use wealth rightly we must part withit.

All the goodsofGod'screation, including the talents that enable us to earngood incomes, are giventomeetthe needsof all. Private property is not ours to dowith as we please; it entails responsibili

ty. Vatican II, after pointing this out,calls attention to worldwide hunger andreminds us of the saying of some earlychurch fathers: Teed those dying ofhunger, becauseifyouhave not fedthem,youhave killedthem" (Gaudium etSpes,69).

Because we live luxuriously by Jesus'standards, we shouldhelp the pooruntilwe have only enough left to satisfy ourneeds and fulfill the responsibilities ofour personal vocations. Jesus clearlywarns us about the gravity ofthis matter:Salvation is at stake.

Anxiety leads us to save and insure forour possiblefuture needs instead ofserving others' urgent present needs. Insecurity about social status leads us to regard wealthier people's luxurious consumption as a standard we must meet.Flight from guilt and other sufferingleads us to seek diverting enjoymentthrough expensive self-indulgence. If ourhopeforheavenwerelively,suchanxiety,insecurity and escapismwouldlosetheirgrip on us. Firmfaith wouldfreeus fromthe cave of the contemporary world.

Christian teaching on the use ofwealthhas been constant, as Pope John XXIIIpoints out (Mater etMagistra,119):"Ourpredecessors have insisted time and

again on the social function inherent inthe right ofprivate ownership,forit cannot be denied that in the plan of thecreator all of this world's goods areprimarily intended for the worthy support ofthe entire human race.Hence, asLeo XIII so wisely taught in RerumNovarum, "Whoever has received fromthe divine bounty a large share of temporalblessings, whethertheybeexternaland corporealor gifts ofthe mind,has received them for the purpose of usingthem for the perfecting of his own natureand, at the same time, that he may employthem, as the stewardofGod's providence, for the benefit of others."*

William F. Buckley impugned theright of the magisterium to make judgments on socioeconomic matters. Lecturing at Georgetown University, Buckley drew laughter and enthusiastic applause by summing up his dissentingview with the slogan, uMater, si!Magistra, no!"

Those who dissent can point out thatthe church's social teaching has developed through the centuries and thatsometimes specificproposalsput forth bypopes have been quietly withdrawn bylater popes. But such defenses are meresophistry, for their dissent really con

cerns not mere details but the unchanging core of Catholic social teaching andthe church's very right to insist upon it

Although never solemnly defined, theprinciples of this social teachingsurelyare infallibly taught, for they have beenproposed by the whole magisterium asbindingand certain. AsJohn XXIII says(Mater et Magistra, 218), "The permanent validity of the Catholic church's socialteachingadmits ofnodoubt" He alsoinsists that "this Catholic social doctrineis an integral part of the Christian conception of life" (222).

We >must, of course, follow our consciences on these matters, just as oneveryother moral question. But we mustform our consciences in the light of faith,

Ifour consciences err through our own.ault in this grave matter, we cannothope to enter the kingdom and must expectto endlikethe parable'srichman.Ifwe do,will we even in hell praise and defend the dissenters who encouraged ourrationalizations? Or will we then at lastrealize the foolishness of the attitudetoward the church's moral teaching expressed by the slogan uMater, si!Magistra, no"? •

National Catholic Reporter "J OJanuary 16, 1987 lO

U.S. is wrong to intendto kill millions ofpeopleByGERMAIN andJEANNETTE GRISEZ

IN A BOOK published last year byOxford University Press, NuclearDeterrence, Morality and Realism,

John Finnis, Joseph Boyle and GermainGrisez examine nuclear deterrence andfind it morally wanting. They concludethat it should be abandoned now — unilaterally.

The U.S. nuclear deterrent is a threat.It expresses a conditional choice to wipe

out the USSR. We Americans hope wewon't "have to" do it. But we will if theUSSR ever "makes it necessary."

U.S. officials often say we do not targetpeople as such. The U.S. bishops weretold that when they were preparing "TheChallengeofPeace." They concluded thatwe don't intend to kill noncombatants.

But the conclusion doesn't follow. Weintend what we want the Soviets to fear,and we want them to fear the destructionof their cities. If the time comes to carryout the threat, eventhe"military" targetsat which U.S. H-bombs are aimed won'tbe destroyed as military targets. Theywill be destroyed as cherished by theSoviets, not as threatening to us.

We're not bluffing. A president couldpersonally be bluffing. But Congress invoting-money and ordinary citizens insupporting the deterrent can't be bluffing, for they will have no part in carrying:out the threat. And if a president werebluffing, he'd still be leading others to intend to carry out the threat.

We cannot replace the immoral threatto kill people with a morally acceptablethreat to destroy Soviet military power. Ifwe could make a credible threat to dothat, we would be in a position to win anuclear war, and we wouldn't need thedeterrent. If Star Wars existed as anearly perfectdefensive shield, we couldfight and win a nuclear war. But StarWars, thus conceived, is a dream thatprobably will never come true.

Meanwhile, we really intend to kill millions of people.Because morality is in theheart, we are already guilty ofmurderingthem. The only way to get rid ofthis guiltis by repenting and resolving never to dowhat we now threaten. And, becausebluffing is impossible, that means weshould give up the deterrent

John Paul II has said the deterrent

Germain Girsez is the Flynn Professor ofChristian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary'sCollege, Emmitsburg, Md. JeannetteGrisez is Germain's wife and collaborator.

"maystillbe judged morally acceptable"as a step on the way to mutual disarmament. But he is probably as confused asthe U.S. bishops are about what the deterrent actually is. Anyway, there is norealprospect ofmutual disarmament(asdistinct from arms control). Indeed, themutual hatred and terror essential to deterrence stimulate the arms race andblock disarmament.

If we abandoned our deterrent, theSoviets would have no reason to launch anuclear attack against us. The USSRcould dominate and exploit a disarmedUnited States, and nobody kills healthyslaves. But enslavement by the Soviets isa horrible prospect.

There is no rational way ofmeasuring*whether it is a more or less horrible prospect than nuclearholocaust,which probably will occureventually ifthe arms racecontinues indefinitely. Thus, the ultimate question is not whether it is betterto be red or dead. Noboby knows. Thexd-timate question is whether sin is worsethan any other evil. Anyone withvfaithknows the answer: Enslavement toSatan is even worse than enslavement tothe Soviets.

The authors realize that the UnitedStates is unlikely to abandon its deterrent. So why write the book?

First, individual citizens can andshould repent and put murder out oftheir hearts. With better hearts, theymight be ablenot only to live better personal lives, but begin to change things sothat real steps toward disarmamentwould become possible.

Second, there's a danger that ourguilty consciences will make us so ambivalent that we will continue to oppose theSoviets, but do so ineffectively. Such half-heartedness in no way will lessen the immorality of the deterrent Rather, "it willadd to it the immorality of irresponsiblydestabilizing the balanceof powerand increasing the risk of nuclear holocaust.

Third, in trying to rationalize the deterrent, the magisterium has come awfully closeto justifying mass murder as anecessary means to the good end of preventing Soviet domination. The authorshopethat their caseagainst the deterrentwill help to overcome the temptation tobe a better servantofNATO than ofGod.

Finally, evangelization of today's worldis blocked by Western culture's concealment of human miseries, and by itspanaceas — together with the Marxistpanacea— for the miseries it can't conceal. One misery humankind shares: living under the threat ofnuclear holocaust.To fail to denounce the murderous intentof the deterrent and to pretend we are onthe way to escaping it by mutual disarmament is to hide this misery.

But honest talk about the real situation, in its human hopelessness and needfor radical conversion, could occasionhope in the only possibleescape from thebalance of terror. Only God in his mercycan makeour penance and prayer sincereand bless sincerity with the peace thatnuclear weapons, political"realism" andmoral compromises cannot give. •

National Catholic Reporter -fl B*January 22,1988 XfJ