16 februari 1989
L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, N. 9, 27 February 1989, Page 7.
The moral norm of “H. Paus Paulus VI - Encycliek
Humanae Vitae
Het menselijk leven en geboorteregelingen
(25 juli 1968)”
and pastoral duty*
With reference to a recent public statement on the teaching of the Magisterium concerning “Humanae Vitae”, made by a well-known moral theologian and widely reported by the press, we publish the following clarifications.
Recent weeks have witnessed critical and sometimes harsh observations on conjugal morality as this is taught by the Magisterium of the Church and in particular by the Encyclical H. Paus Paulus VI - Encycliek
Humanae Vitae
Het menselijk leven en geboorteregelingen
(25 juli 1968) of Paul VI.
Doubts have been raised about interpretations of this teaching judged excessively rigid and intransigent, and grave fears have been expressed that, if the Church continues to teach and urge the moral norm of H. Paus Paulus VI - Encycliek
Humanae Vitae
Het menselijk leven en geboorteregelingen
(25 juli 1968) in keeping with such interpretations, she may lose credibility and attention with the critical person of today and with a large number of the faithful.
The mass media, for their part, have not been silent; they have echoed the doubts and fears of some theologians, often with undue simplification and mistaken interpretations, producing much confusion among the faithful.
In general, these doubts and fears are raised by considering first of all those couples who find difficulty in observing the moral norm regarding responsible procreation, that is to say, they are raised in terms of a sensitivity and concern which are meant to be pastoral. But one also finds reference to more specifically doctrinal questions, such as, for example, the interpretation of certain elements of tradition the claim that it is impossible to provide a biblical foundation of some particular moral norms (like the norm which prohibits contraception), recourse to a more definitely theological way of posing the moral question (“teleological” in the sense of a weighing of the consequences), and stressing the rights of personal conscience vis-à-vis the teaching of the Magisterium. Such objections are sometimes formulated without the scientific rigour which should distinguish serious theological reflection. Occasionally they take the form of personal attacks of a rancorous and disconcerting kind.