Cod’Jvoh'o dhorc^ • H'Oc^oaoJ Cor^e/er>U.

— Ca+UoWc- tbishop^

VAixmarv \'W ^ c>ar Abi?399S
> UNIVBRSITY W«

'V
•**>‘r%e DftWfc

uVANITIES
U««ABY

f HUMAN 1
LIFE IN OUR

DAY
A collective pastoral letter of the

American Hierarchy issued

ImZfSF'Jfoveinber 15, 1968. A



&=rc

© UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1968

United States Catholic Conference

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

2



Human Life in Our Day

A collective pastoral letter

of the American Hierarchy

issued on November 15, 1968,

at their annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

3



Contents

Introductory Statement / 5

Chapter One: The Christian Family / 7

Chapter Two: The Family of Nations / 30

•n.

4



Introductory Statement

We honor God when we rev-

erence human life. When hu-

man life is served, man is en-

riched and God is acknowl-

edged. When human life is

threatened, man is dimin-

ished and God is less mani-

fest in our midst.

A Christian defense of life
should seek to clarify in

some way the relationship

between the love of life and

the worship of God. One

cannot love life unless he

worships God, at least im-

plicitly, nor worship God un-

less he loves life.

The purpose of this pas-

toral letter of the United

States bishops is precisely

the doctrine and defense of

life. Our present letter fol-

lows the moral principles set

forth in the Pastoral Consti-

tution on the Church in the

Modern World issued by

Vatican Council II. It pre-

supposes the general doctrine

of the Church which we ex-

plored in our pastoral letter

The Church in Our Day. It

responds to the encyclical

Humanae Vitae in this same

context.

We are prompted to speak
this year in defense of life

for reasons of our pastoral

obligation to dialogue within

the believing community

concerning what faith has to

say in response to the threat

to life in certain problems of

the family and of war and

peace.

We also choose to speak of
life because of the needed di-

alogue among all men of
faith. This is particularly nec-

essary among Christians and

all believers in God, and be-

tween believers and all who
love life if peace is to be se-

cured and life is to be served.

There is evidence that many

men find difficulty in recon-
ciling their love for life with

worship of the Lord of life.

On the other hand, it is be-
coming clear that the believ-

5



er and the humanist have

common concerns for both

life and peace. For example,

an agnostic philosopher,

much listened to by contem-

porary students, has this to

say:

“Why do not those who

represent the traditions

of religion and human-

ism speak up and say

that there is no deadlier

sin than love for death

and contempt for life?

Why not encourage our
best brains — scientists,
artists, educators — to
make suggestions on

how to arouse and stim-

ulate love for life as op-

posed to love for gad-

gets? . . . Maybe it is

too late. Maybe the neu-

tron bomb which leaves

entire cities intact, but

without life, is to be the

symbol of our civiliza-

tion” (Erich Fromm:

The Heart of Man: Its

Genius for Good and

Evil).

The defense of life pro-

vides a starting point, then,

for positive dialogue between

Christians and humanists.

Christians bring to the dia-

logue on the defense of life

a further motivation. We are
convinced that belief in God

is intimately bound up with

devotion to life. God is the

ultimate source of life, His

Son its Redeemer, so that de-

nial of God undermines the

sanctity of life itself.

Our pastoral letter will

emphasize the maturing of

life in the family and the de-

velopment of life in a peace-

ful world order. Threats to

life are most effectively con-

fronted by an appeal to

Christian conscience. We
pray that our words may join

us in common cause with all
who reverence life and seek

peace. We pray further that
our efforts may help join all
men in common faith before

God Who “gives freely and
His gift is eternal life” (Rm.

6
,
23 ).

6



Chapter One

The Christian Family

The attitude man adopts to-

ward life helps determine

the person he becomes. In

the family, man and life are

first united. In the family,

the person becomes the con-

fident servant of life and life

becomes the servant of man.

The Church must make good

her belief in human life and

her commitment to its devel-

opment by active as well as

doctrinal defense of the fam-

ily and by practical witness

to the values of family life.

The Church thinks of her-

self as a family, the family

of God and, so, is the more

solicitous for the human

family. She sees Christian

marriage as a sign of the

union between Christ and the

Church (cf. Eph. 5, 31-32), a

manifestation to history of

the “genuine nature of the

Church” (Gaudium et Spes,

48). Christian married love

is “caught up into divine love

and is governed and enriched

by Christ’s redeeming power

and the saving activity of

the Church” (Gaudium et

Spes, 48). No institution or

community in human history

has spoken more insistently

and profoundly than the

Church of the dignity of

marriage.

It is in terms of Christ and

of salvation history, never of

sociology alone, that the

Church thinks of marriage.

That is the point of her posi-

tive teachings on the sanc-

tity, the rights and the duties

of the married state; it is

also the point of her occa-

sional strictures, as when

Vatican Council II realisti-

cally cautions that “married

love is too often profaned by

excessive self-love, the wor-

ship of pleasure, and illicit

practices against human gen-

eration” (Gaudium et Spes,

47).

The family fulfills its

promise when it reinforces

fidelity to life and hope in its

future. The values of fideli-

ty and hope, essential to hu-

man life and Christian love,

7



are sometimes weakened

even while men continue to
think all is well. Such is

often the case in our times.

Fidelity and hope are espe-

cially threatened when the

family is considered largely

in terms of the pleasures or

conveniences it provides for

the individual or in terms of

its economic or political po-

tential. Christians should be

the first to promote material

improvement and provide

for the family structure, but

they must never measure the

worth of the family nor the

purpose of family life by

these standards alone.

For the believer, the fam-

ily is the place where God’s

image is reproduced in His

creation. The family is the

community within which the

person is realized, the place

where all our hopes for the

future of the person are

nourished. The family is a

learning experience in which

fidelity is fostered, hope im-

parted and life honored; it

thus increases the moral re-

sources of our culture and,

more importantly, of the

person. The family is a sign

to all mankind of fidelity to

life and of hope in the future

which become possible when

persons are in communion

with one another; it is a sign

to believers of the depth of

this fidelity and this hope

when these center on God; it

is a sign to Christians of the

fidelity and hope which

Christ communicates as the

elder brother of the family

of the Church for which He

died (cf. Eph. 5, 25).

it
The Family:

A Force for Life

It is the unfortunate fact that

in all times some men have
acted against life. The forms

of the threat have varied;

some of these endure to this

day. Since the family is the

source of life, no act against

life is more hostile than one

which occurs within the

family. By such an act, life

is cancelled out within that

very community whose es-

sential purposes include the

gift of life to the world and

the service of life in fidelity

and hope.

For all these reasons, the

Christian family is called

more now than ever to a
prophetic mission, a witness

to the primacy of life and the

importance of whatever pre-

serves life. The Christian

family therefore occupies a

pre-eminent place in our re-

newed theology, particularly

the theology of marriage and

8



of the vocation of the laity.

Christian families are called

to confront the world with

the full reality of human

love and proclaim to the

world the mystery of divine

love as these are revealed

through the family.

The prophetic mission of

the family obliges it to fidel-

ity to conjugal love in the

face of the compromises and

infidelities condoned in our

culture. Its prophetic mis-

sion obliges the family to

valiant hope in life, contra-

dicting whatever forces seek

to prevent, destroy or impair

life. In its emphasis on the

virtues of fidelity and hope,

so essential to the prophetic

witness of the family, Chris-

tian sexual morality derives

therefore not from the in-

violability of generative bi-

ology, but ultimately from

the sanctity of life itself and

the nobility of human sex-
uality.

The Christian ascetic of

chastity, within and outside

marriage, honors the sanctity

of life and protects the dig-

nity of human sexuality.

Were there no Revelation

nor religion, civilization it-

self would require rational

discipline of the sexual in-

stinct. Revelation, however,

inspires chastity with more

sublime purposes and crea-

tive power. In chaste love,
~

the Christian, whether his

vocation be to marriage or to

celibacy, expresses love for

God Himself. In the case of

spouses, marital chastity de-

mands not the contradiction

of sexuality but its ordered

expression in openness to life

and fidelity to love, which

means also openness and

faithfulness to God.

These considerations enter

into the definition of re-

sponsible parenthood. The

decision to give life to an-

other person is the responsi-

bility, under God, of the

spouses who, in effect, ask

the Creator to commit to

their care the formation of a

child (cf. Gaudium et Spes,

50). The fact that the deci-

sion touches upon human life

and the human person is an

indication of the reverence

in which it must be made;

the fact that the decision in-

volves openness to God’s cre-

ative power and providential

love demands that it be un-

selfish, free from all calcula-

tion inconsistent with gen-

erosity.

Responsible parenthood, as

the Church understands it,

places on the properly

formed conscience of spouses

all the judgments, options

and choices which add up to

the awesome decision to give,

postpone or decline life. The

final decision may sometimes
involve medical, economic,

sociological or psychological

9



considerations, but in no case

can it deliberately choose

objective moral disorder. If

it is to be responsible, it can-

not be the result of mere

caprice nor of superficial

judgments concerning rela-

tive values as between per-

sons and things, between life

and its conveniences.

Marital love, then, in its

deepest meaning relates not

only to the birth and rearing

of children within the family

society, but to the growth

and well-being of human so-

ciety on its every level and

in its every aspect. It relates

at the same time to the

eternal life of those who

choose marriage as their way

to salvation. It is within this

perspective of a total vision

of man and not merely of

isolated family considera-

tions, narrowly conceived,

that Pope Paul, drawing ex-

tensively on the content of

Vatican Council II, has writ-

ten his encyclical Humanae

Vitae.

World provides the theologi-

cal framework within which

Pope Paul works out the

teaching set forth in Hu-

manae Vitae:

“Therefore when there

is question of harmoniz-

ing conjugal love with

the responsible trans-

mission of life, the moral

aspect of any procedure

does not depend solely

on sincere intentions or

on an evaluation of mo-

tives. It must be deter-

mined by objective

standards. These, based

on the nature of the hu-

man person and his acts,

preserve the full sense

of mutual self-giving

and human procreation

in the context of true

love. Such a goal cannot

be achieved unless the

virtue of conjugal chas-

tity is sincerely prac-

ticed. Relying on these

principles, sons of the

Church may not under-

take methods of regulat-

ing procreation which

are found blameworthy

by the teaching authori-

ty of the Church in its

unfolding of the divine

law.m
The Encyclical

and Its Content

“Everyone should be

persuaded that human

life and the task of

transmitting it are not

realities bound up with

The Pastoral Constitution on

the Church in the Modern

10



this world alone. Hence

they cannot be measured

or perceived only in

terms of it, but always

have a bearing on the

eternal destiny of men”

(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Pope Paul speaks of con-

jugal love as “fully human,”

“a very special form of per-

sonal friendship,” “faithful

and exclusive until death,”

“a source of profound and

lasting happiness.” Such

love, however, “is not ex-

hausted by the communion

between husband and wife,

but is destined to continue,

raising up new lives.” There

is an “objective moral order

established by God” which

requires that “each and ev-

ery marriage act must re-

main open to the transmis-

sion of life.”

Both conciliar and papal

teaching, therefore, empha-

size that the interrelation be-

tween the unitive meaning

and the procreative meaning

of marriage is impaired, even

contradicted, when acts ex-

pressive of marital union are

performed without love on

the one hand and without

openness to life on the other.

Consistent with this, the en-

cyclical sees the use of the

periodic rhythms of nature,

even though such use avoids

rather than prevents concep-

tion, as morally imperfect if

its motivation is primarily

refusal of life rather than

the human desire to share

love within the spirituality of

responsible parenthood.

The encyclical Humanae

Vitae is not a negative proc-

lamation, seeking only to

prohibit artificial methods of

contraception. In full aware-

ness of population problems

and family anxieties, it is a

defense of life and of love, a

defense which challenges the

prevailing spirit of the times.

Long-range judgments may

well find the moral insights

of the encyclical prophetic

and its world-view provi-

dential. There is already ev-

idence that some peoples in

economically under-devel-

oped areas may sense this
more than those conditioned

by the affluence of a priv-

ileged way of life.

The encyclical is a positive

statement concerning the na-

ture of conjugal love and re-

sponsible parenthood, a

statement which derives

from a global vision of man,

an integral view of marriage,

and the first principles, at

least, of a sound sexuality.

It is an obligatory statement,

consistent with moral con-

victions rooted in the tradi-

tions of Eastern and Western

Christian faith; it is an au-

thoritative statement sol-

emnly interpreting impera-

tives which are divine rather

than ecclesiastical in origin.

11



It presents without ambigui-

ty, doubt or hesitation the

authentic teaching of the

Church concerning the ob-

jective evil of that contra-

ception which closes the

marital act to the transmis-

sion of life, deliberately

making it unfruitful. United

in collegial solidarity with

the Successor of Peter, we

proclaim this doctrine.

The encyclical reminds us

that the use of the natural

rhythms never involves a di-

rect positive action against

the possibility of life; arti-

ficial contraception always

involves a direct positive ac-

tion against the possibility of

life. Correspondence with

the natural rhythms remains

essentially attuned to the

unitive and procreative in-

tent of the conjugal act even

when the spouses are aware

of the silence of nature to

life.

There are certain values

which may not oblige us al-

ways to act on their behalf,

but we are prohibited from

ever acting directly against

them by positive acts. Truth

is such a value; life is surely

another. It is one thing to

say that an action against

these values is inculpable,

diminished in guilt, or sub-

jectively defensible; it is

quite another to defend it as

objectively virtuous.

The Church’s teaching on

the moral means to responsi-

ble parenthood presupposes

certain positive values. One

of these is that Christian

marriage involves an ever-

maturing mutuality between

husband and wife, a con-

stantly increasing awareness

of the manner in which the

total nuptial relationship

parallels and symbolizes the

love-sharing and life-giving

union between Christ and

His Church. The unitive and

creative values symbolized

by sexual expression per-

meate marriage in its every

aspect. This consideration

becomes more important as

the years of married life go

by, especially when changes

in society give couples longer

years of leisure together af-

ter their children begin to

live on their own. This ex-

plains the importance that

couples be united from the

beginning of their love by

common interests and shared

activities which will intensi-

fy their nuptial relationship

and insure its unity against

disruption because of disap-

pointment in one or another

of their hopes.

No one pretends that re-

sponsible parenthood or even

fidelity to the unitive love

of marriage, as these are un-

derstood by the Church, is

easy of attainment without

prayerful discipline. Re-

course to natural rhythms,

12



for example, presents prob-

lems which the Holy Father

has asked medical science to

help solve. Chastity, as other

virtues, is not mastered all

at once or without sacrifice.

It may involve failures and
success, declines and growth,

regressions in the midst of

progress. A hierarchy of
values that reflects a con-

formity to the example of

Christ is neither easily

achieved nor insured against

loss. Moreover, Christians,

however many their failures,
will neither expect nor wish

the Church to obscure the

moral ideal in the light of

which they press forward to

perfection.

In the pursuit of the ideal

of chastity, again as of every

other virtue to which he is

bound, the Christian must

never lose heart; least of all,

can he pretend that compro-

mise is conquest. At all

times, his mind and heart

will echo St. Paul: “Not that

I have become perfect yet;

I have not yet won, but I am
still running, trying to cap-

ture the prize for which

Christ Jesus captured me”
(Phil. 3, 12). In no case, does

he suppose that the Church,

in proposing such goals,

teaches erroneously and

needlessly burdens its mem-
bers.

They are quite right who
insist that the Church must

labor to heal the human con-

dition by more than word

and precept alone if it wishes

its preaching to be taken

seriously. All the moral

teaching of the Church pro-

poses objective standards

difficult to attain: of honesty,

respect for other peoples’

property and lives, social

justice, integrity in public

office, devotion to learning,

to service, to God. These

standards demand of those

to whom they are preached
renunciations, frequently

against the grain, but crea-

tive in their final effect.

They also demand of those

who preach these ideals that

they, too, play their full part

in the struggle against the

social evils which obstruct

their attainment.

We shall consider later in
this letter some of our pas-

toral responsibilities toward

the promotion of distributive

justice, the rights and stabil-

ity of the family, and the

consequent social climate

favorable to marriage moral-

ity. In the meantime, the

Church, when She fulfills her

prophetic role of preaching

moral ideals and social re-

form, must do so with all the

patience that the work of

teaching requires (cf. 2 Tim.

4, 2).

The existence of the Sac-

rament of Penance in the

Church is an indication that

13



Christian ideals are not easy

to achieve nor, once achieved,

ours forever. The Church

cannot, however, compro-

mise the ideal. She is bound

to teach it as it is.

The Encyclical

and Conscience

Developing last year the

teaching of the Council on

the nature of the Church, we

spoke of the reciprocal

claims of conscience and au-

thority in the Christian com-

munity as Christ called it

into being. We noted that
conscience “though it is in-

violable is not a law unto

itself”; that “the distinction

between natural religion and

revealed lies in this: that one

has a subjective authority,

and the other an objective,”

though both invoke con-

science. We recalled that
“God does not leave man to
himself but has entered his-

tory through a Word which

is ‘the true light that en-

lightens all men’; that Word

speaks to us and still en-

lightens us in the Church of

Jesus Christ which carries

the double burden of human

conscience and divine au-

thority.”

These wider questions of

conscience, its nature, wit-

ness, aberrations and claims,

above all its formation, are

presupposed in this encycli-

cal as in any papal or con-

ciliar decisions on moral

teaching. We recognize the
role of conscience as a “prac-

tical dictate,” not a teacher

of doctrine.

Thomas Aquinas describes

conscience as the practical

judgment or dictate of rea-

son, by which we judge what
here and now is to be done

as being good, or to be

avoided as evil. Vatican

Council II says that a man is

not to be forced to act in a

manner contrary to his con-

science (cf. Dignitatis Hu-

manae Personae, 3). This

is certainly true in any con-

flict between a practical dic-

tate of conscience and a

legislative or administrative

decree of any superior.

However, when it is ques-

tion of the Pope’s teaching, as

distinct from a decree or or-

der, on a matter bound up

with life and salvation, the

question of conscience and its

formation takes on quite dif-

ferent perspectives and di-

mensions. Cardinal Newman
puts it in strong terms: “. . . I

have to say again, lest I

should be misunderstood,

that when I speak of con-

science, I mean conscience

truly so called. When it has

14



the right of opposing the su-

preme, though not infallible

Authority of the Pope, it

must be something more than

that miserable counterfeit

which, as I have said above,

now goes by the name. If in a

particular case it is to be

taken as a sacred and sover-

eign monitor, its dictate, in

order to prevail against the

voice of the Pope, must fol-

low upon serious thought,

prayer, and all available

means of arriving at a right

judgment on the matter in

question. And further, obedi-

ence to the Pope is what is

called ‘in possession’; that is,

the onus probandi (burden

of proof) of establishing a

case against him lies, as in

all cases of exception, on the

side of conscience. Unless a

man is able to say to himself,

as in the Presence of God,

that he must not, and dare

not, act upon the Papal in-

junction, he is bound to obey

it and would commit a great

sin in disobeying it. Prima

facie it is his bounden duty,

even from a sentiment of

loyalty, to believe the Pope

right and to act according-

ly . . (A Letter to the

Duke of Norfolk).

Humanae Vitae does not -

discuss the question of the

good faith of those who make

practical decisions in con-

science against what the

Church considers a divine

law and the Will of God. The

encyclical does not undertake

to judge the consciences of

individuals but to set forth

the authentic teaching of the

Church which Catholics be-

lieve interprets the divine

law to which conscience

should be conformed.

The Pastoral Constitution

on the Church in the Modern

World reminds us that “in

their manner of acting,

spouses should be aware that

they cannot proceed arbi-

trarily. They must always be

governed according to a con-

science dutifully conformed

to the divine law itself, and

should be submissive toward

the Church’s teaching office,

which authentically inter-

prets that law in the light of

the Gospel. That divine law

reveals and protects the in-

tegral meaning of conjugal

love and impels it toward a

truly human fulfillment”
(Gaudium et Spes, 50). We
must not suppose that there

is such conflict between au-

thority and freedom, between

objective values and sub-

jective fulfillment, that one

can only prevail by the elimi-

nation of the other.

Married couples faced with

conflicting duties are often

caught in agonizing crises of

conscience. For example, at

times it proves difficult to

harmonize the sexual ex-

pression of conjugal love

15



with respect for the life-

giving power of sexual union

and the demands of respon-

sible parenthood. Pope Paul’s

encyclical and the commen-

taries of the international

episcopates on it are sensi-

tive as are we to these

painful situations. Filled

with compassion for the hu-

man condition the Holy Fa-

ther offers counsel which we

make our own:

“Let married couples,

then, face up to the ef-

forts needed, supported

by the faith and hope

which do not disappoint

. . . because God’s love

has been poured into our

hearts through the Holy

Spirit, Who has been
given to us; let them

implore divine assistance

by persevering prayer;

above all, let them draw

from the source of grace

and charity in the Eu-

charist. And if sin should
still keep its hold over

them, let them not be

discouraged, but rather

have recourse with
humble perseverance to

the mercy of God, which

is poured forth in the

Sacrament of Penance”

(Humanae Vitae, 25).

We feel bound to remind
Catholic married couples,

when they are subjected to

the pressures which prompt

the Holy Father’s concern,

that however circumstances

may reduce moral guilt, no
one following the teaching of

the Church can deny the ob-

jective evil of artificial con-

traception itself. With
pastoral solicitude we urge

those who have resorted to
artificial contraception never

to lose heart but to continue

to take full advantage of the

strength which comes from

the Sacrament of Penance

and the grace, healing, and

peace in the Eucharist. May
we all be mindful of the in-

vitation of Jesus: “The man
who comes to me I will
never turn away” (Jn. 6, 37).

Humility, awareness of our

pilgrim state, a willingness

and determination to grow in

the likeness of the Risen

Christ will help to restore

direction of purpose and

spiritual stability.

>(
Negative Reactions

to the Encyclical

The position taken by the

Holy Father in his encyclical

troubled many. The reasons

for this are numerous. Not a

few had been led and had led

others to believe that a con-

trary decision might be an-

ticipated. The mass media

16



which largely shape public

opinion have, as the Holy Fa-

ther himself pointed out, at

times amplified the voices

which are contrary to the

voice of the Church. Then,

too, doctrine on this point

has its effect not only on the

intellects of those who hear

it but on their deepest emo-

tions; it is hardly surprising

that negative reactions have

ranged from sincere anguish

to angry hurt or bitter dis-

appointment, even among de-

vout believers. Finally, a de-

cision on a point so long

uncontroverted and only re-

cently confronted by new

questions was bound to meet

with mixed reactions.

That tensions such as these

should arise within the
household of the faith is not

surprising and need not be

scandalous. The Holy Father

frankly confessed that his

teaching would not be easily

received by all. Some reac-

tions were regrettable, how-

ever, in the light of the

explicit teaching of Vatican

Council II concerning the ob-

ligation of Catholics to assent

to papal teaching even when

it is not presented with the

seal of infallibility. The

Council declared:

“In matters of faith and

morals, the bishops

speak in the name of

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 au-

thentic teaching author-

ity of the Roman
Pontiff, even when he is

not speaking ex-cathe-

dra. That is, it must be

shown in such a way

that his supreme mag-

isterium is acknowledged

with reverence, the

judgments made by him

are sincerely adhered to,

according to his mani-

fest mind and will. His

mind and will in the

matter may be known

chiefly either from the

character of the docu-

ments, from his frequent

repetition of the same

doctrine, or from his

manner of speaking”

(Lumen Gentium, 25).

Pope Paul has recalled this

obligation several times with

respect to his encyclical on

the regulation of birth, be-

ginning when he exhorted

priests “to be the first to

give, in the exercise of your

ministry, the example of

loyal internal and external

obedience to the teaching au-

thority of the Church” (Hu-

manae Vitae, 28).

17



Norms of Licit

Theological Dissent

There exist in the Church a

lawful freedom of inquiry

and of thought and also gen-

eral norms of licit dissent.

This is particularly true in

the area of legitimate the-

ological speculation and re-

search. When conclusions
reached by such professional

theological work prompt a

scholar to dissent from non-

infallible received teaching

the norms of licit dissent

come into play. They require

of him careful respect for the

consciences of those who lack

his special competence or

opportunity for judicious in-

vestigation. These norms also

require setting forth his dis-

sent with propriety and with

regard for the gravity of the

matter and the deference due

the authority which has pro-

nounced on it.

The reverence due all sac-

red matters, particularly
questions which touch on

salvation, will not necessar-

ily require the responsible

scholar to relinquish his

opinion but certainly to pro-

pose it with prudence born

of intellectual grace and a

Christian confidence that the

truth is great and will pre-

vail.

When there is question of
theological dissent from non-

infallible doctrine, we must

recall that there is always a

presumption in favor of the

magisterium. Even non-in-

fallible authentic doctrine,

though it may admit of de-
velopment or call for clari-

fication or revision, remains

binding and carries with it a

moral certitude, especially

when it is addressed to the

universal Church, without

ambiguity, in response to ur-

gent questions bound up

with faith and crucial to

morals. The expression of

theological dissent from the

magisterium is in order only

if the reasons are serious and

well-founded, if the manner

of the dissent does not ques-

tion or impugn the teaching

authority of the Church and

is such as not to give scandal.

Since our age is character-

ized by popular interest in

theological debate and given

the realities of modern mass

media, the ways in which

theological dissent may be

effectively expressed, in a

manner consistent with pas-

toral solicitude, should be-

come the object of fruitful

dialogue between bishops and

theologians. These have their

diverse ministries in the

Church, their distinct re-

18



sponsibilities to the faith and

their respective charisms.

Even responsible dissent

does not excuse one from

faithful presentation of the

authentic doctrine of the

Church when one is per-

forming a pastoral ministry

in Her name.

We count on priests, the
counsellors of persons and

families, to heed the appeal

of Pope Paul that they “ex-

pound the Church’s teaching

on marriage without ambigu-

ity”; that they “diminish in

no way the saving teaching

of Christ,” but “teach mar-

ried couples the indispensa-

ble way of prayer . . .

without ever allowing them

to be discouraged by their

weakness” (Humanae Vitae,

29). We commend to confes-
sors, as does Pope Paul, the

example of the Lord Him-

self, Who was indeed in-
transigent with evil, but

merciful towards individuals.

Family Spirituality

Our concern for family life

must extend far beyond the

publication of pastoral let-

ters. We pledge ourselves to

cooperate in multiplying

ways and means toward the

renewal of the family and

the enhancing of its prestige.

Specifically, we shall increase

our encouragement in the di-

oceses and the nation of

programs undertaken by

apostolic groups whose ob-

jective is the natural and

spiritual strengthening of the

Christian family.

Because of the primacy of

the spiritual in all that makes

for renewal, we give top

priority to whatever may

produce a sound “family

spirituality.” Family prayer,

above all that which derives

its content and spirit from

the liturgy, and other devo-

tions, particularly the Ro-

sary; family reading of the

Scriptures; family attend-

ance at Mass and reception

of Communion; family re-

treats, days of recollection

and other special devotions;

the observance of occasions

of spiritual significance for

members of the household —
all these will increase the

awareness of the family that

it is the “Church in minia-

ture.”

For these reasons, we wel-

come the work of those the-

ologians who are preparing

a modern and valid ascetical

theology of marriage. We re-
call gratefully the spiritual

emphasis in many family-life

programs, national and local,

19



whose primary focus of con-

cern has been the theology

of the Christian family.

To prepare future spouses

more adequately we recom-

mend specialized team-ef-

forts in their behalf on the

part of pastors of souls and

qualified counsellors, includ-

ing devout married couples.

Such projects will give en-

gaged couples the benefit of

human wisdom and of Chris-

tian spirituality in the plan-

ning of their home, the

founding of a family, the ed-

ucation of children, and all

that makes for fidelity and

hope in their lives together.

We endorse the establish-
ment of diocesan family life

centers throughout the coun-

try so that Christian couples,

physicians, psychologists, so-

ciologists and priests may

cooperate in implementing

responsible parenthood in

accordance with the princi-

ples enunciated in Humanae

Vitae. On the national level,

in response to the Holy Fa-

ther’s request for scientific

research into effective and

moral means of family plan-

ning, we bishops in the

United States intend to

establish an independent,

non-denominational, non-

profit foundation which will

sponsor scientific research

resulting in conclusions
which will be helpful to doc-

tors, educators and, ulti-

mately, spouses in licit
family planning.

The responsibility of our

Family Life Division to pro-

vide information, educational

tools and guidance in the

face of the mounting prob-

lems of family life will make

it an increasing source of

service to diocesan family

programs. We also hope to
see established centers of ed-

ucation in family life under

the auspices of local medical

schools or doctors’ guilds to-

gether with collegiate or

adult education programs,

and the chaplains to students

or young-adult groups. We
note the Holy Father’s trib-

ute to the promising aposto-

late which brings together

married couples who desire

to communicate their experi-

ences to other married cou-

ples and thus become
apostles of fidelity to the di-

vine law and guides to ful-

fillment in love.

H

Education of

Children in Sexuality

In accord with the Decree on

Christian Education of Vati-

can Council II we affirm the

20



value and necessity of wisely

planned education of chil-

dren in human sexuality,

adapted to the maturity and

background of our young

people. We are under a grave
obligation, in part arising

from the new circumstances

of modern culture and com-

munications, to assist the

family in its efforts to pro-

vide such training. This obli-

gation can be met either by

systematic provision of such

education in the diocesan

school curriculum or by the

inauguration of acceptable

educational programs under

other diocesan auspices, in-

cluding the Confraternity of

Christian Doctrine. Parents

are those primarily responsi-

ble for imparting to their

children an awareness of the

sacredness of sexuality; this

will ordinarily be best ac-

complished when both par-

ents discharge this duty in

mutual consultation and
shared responsibility. The

necessity for greater com-

munication and cooperation

between parents and teach-

ers is highlighted in this

problem; the consequent role

of Parent-Teacher Guilds and

similar home-school associa-

tions is apparent.

Parents are sometimes
fearful that their right to

teach the norms of sexual

morality to their children

may be usurped or that pro-

grams such as we envision

may lead to the sexual mis-

direction of their children if

the teachers involved are in-

adequately prepared or emo-

tionally immature. In the

light of such legitimate con-

cerns, the careful selection

of instructors for these dis-

cussions is a serious responsi-

bility to be shared by priests,

school authorities and par-

ents, perhaps best under the

auspices of parent-teacher

associations.

The content of these in-

structions should provide an

appreciation of “the true

values of life and of the fam-

ily” (Humanae Vitae

,

21), in

addition to a healthy incul-

cation, from the earliest

years of moral and intellec-

tual formation, of how con-

jugal love involves a
harmonious response from

the emotions, the passions,

the body and the mind. At

the same time, healthy Chris-

tian attitudes toward life will

be developed in young people

if they are given an under-

standing, consistent with
their years, of why the
Council insists that those

“actions within marriage by

which the couple are united

intimately and chastely are

noble and worthy ones”

(Gaudium et Spes, 49).

During these early years of

physical growth and spiri-

t u a 1 formation, especially

21



throughout adolescence, our

young people and their
neighbors should be taught

to appreciate the heroic wit-

ness to divine life and the

unique service to human life

given by those who, with

love undivided, dedicate to

God and their fellow-men

the consecration of their

celibacy and virginity for the

sake of the Kingdom of God.

Our priests, religious broth-

ers and sisters have bound

themselves to live in per-

severing single-hearted
commitment as intimate col-

laborators with God Himself,

from Whom every family,
whether spiritual or natural,

takes its name both in heav-

en and on earth (Eph. 3, 15).

Every family is therefore in

their debt: the families from

which they come, the fam-

ilies to which they bear their

special witness of life and

love, the national family

they strengthen, the family

of the Church. No one knows

this more than their bishops;

no one is more grateful.

88
The New Family

In facing current problems of

the American family, we

welcome the open approach

of the Pastoral Constitution

on the Church in the Modern

World toward marriage and

the family. It provides a

timely and optimistic over-

view of the community

aspect of marriage, a com-

munity that functions best

when all its members under-

stand that freedom is their

birthright and a developing

sense of responsibility their

challenge. It sets up bal-

ances which provide for the

more perfect personal de-

velopment of each family

member and, at the same

time, assures the optimum

effect of the family unit in

the larger family of man. It

recognizes the continual and

rapid changes which char-

acterize our times.

The style of family living

is undoubtedly affected by

changing social conditions,

yet the family retains a

resilience and strength that

helps it adapt to change. In

fact, the family has always

been the witness to change

as it passes on the wisdom,

successes and accomplish-

ments of one generation to

the next as a patrimony for

the pursuance of its dreams.

Commenting on this adapt-

ability to change that is al-

most inherent in the family,

Pope Paul VI notes that “in a

world in the midst of change,

it would be useless to want

22



to close one’s eyes to the

adaptations which even the

most stable, most traditional

institutions must accept. No

matter how great the merits

of the family of yesterday

may have been, it is the one

of today and of tomorrow

which must attract the at-

tention of men who are

really preoccupied with the

welfare of humanity. These

‘new families’ possess many

new characteristics, some of

which may certainly give

rise to legitimate disquie-

tude. But — we say without
fear — the Church looks
with pleasure upon many of

these innovations: the cessa-

tion, for example, of certain

social or family restrictions,

the freer and more conscious

choice of a spouse, the

greater stress placed upon

the development of husband

and wife, the more lively in-

terest in the education of

children, and still many

other traits which it is not

possible to enumerate in de-

tail” (Paul VI to IUFO).

One of the best examples

of this new type of family

structure is the present-day

American family. It is a com-

munity of individual per-

sons joined by human love,

and living a community life

that provides for the greatest

expression of individualism.

At the same time, equalitar-

ian marriage patterns have

so developed among Ameri-

cans as to avoid rigid role

assignments within the fam-

ily and thus make possible a

deeper family unity.

The family unit develops

apart from the parent-fam-

ilies, yet not totally isolated.

In our technological culture,

transportation facilities and

communications media pro-

vide new systems of mobil-

ity and yet fortunately allow

for a strengthening of human

bonds among families, de-

spite the distances in geo-

graphical location.

The educational attain-

ment of women and a new
emphasis on legal and social

equality between men and

women create further ten-
sions but also opportunities

for more effective partner-

ship in marriage. This adds

a further reason why a Cath-
olic theology of family life

must be spelled out to match

the changing patterns of the

American family. A relevant
theology will reinforce the

efforts of spouses to achieve

conjugal maturity; it will

enable them to realize the

more profoundly the differ-

ence between romance and

love and to understand that

only gradually will they

achieve the harmony be-

tween healthy individualism

and mutual self-giving in

which Christian personalism

consists.

23



4"^
New Tensions,

New Needs

Technological and cultural

changes bring with them

complexities not easily re-

solved. Some of these set up

pressures on the family from

outside, some from within.

For example, even the fam-

ily today finds itself under

the necessity to develop new

channels of “communica-

tion”; this seems a formid-

able word to describe

relations within the intimate

community that a human

family should be. However,

the problem is made real by

the profoundly changed cir-

cumstances under which each

family member now seeks to

establish an identity while

preserving a warm sense of

family unity and pride. Fam-

ily harmony in our day will

depend on just such “com-

munication” as parents
attempt to solve the author-

ity-obedience dilemma with

their growing children.
Moreover, reformed “com-

munication” within the fam-

ily is needed if the manifold

educational resources of fam-

ily life itself are to comple-

ment the formal schooling of

children.

The individual family is

now challenged to new re-

sponsibilities toward the
plurality of families which

comprises the nation, the hu-

man community and the

Church. And so Christian

families, conscious of their

part in the progress of the

wider human family, will

wish to share not only their

spiritual heritage with fam-

ilies less privileged but also

their material resources.
They will seek by their own

initiatives to supplement

government action, being

painfully aware that in our

own country many families

are victims of poverty, dis-

ease and inadequate living

standards.

Informed social critics are

asserting that family insta-

bility in the urban areas of

America is the result, in part

at least, of our national fail-

ure to adopt comprehensive

and realistic family-centered

policies during the course of

this century. The break-

down of the family has in-

trinsic causes, some of them

moral, but these have been

aggravated by the indiffer-

ence or neglect of society and

24



by the consequences of pov-

erty and racist attitudes. The

object of wise social policy

is not only the physical well-

being of persons but their

emotional stability and moral

growth, not as individuals

but, whenever possible, with-

in family units.

In principle, American so-

cial theory has always rec-

ognized that the normal fam-

ily enjoys a real autonomy;

only the abnormal inade-

quacy of a particular family

places its members within

the competency of our courts.

Even then, whenever possi-

ble, it is the disposition of

our public agencies to supply

the defects of nature by pro-

viding the neglected, delin-

quent or homeless child with

the nearest possible approach

to life and training in a fam-

ily setting. Americans have

tended to prefer, particular-

ly recently, the plan of foster

homes where the role of

natural parents can be some-

how supplied in the develop-

ment of the person within a

human family. Our theory in

all these respects has been

admirable
;

its implementa-

tion in legislation and in

practice has not always kept

pace with the problems test-

ing the theory. The present

urban crisis is but one evi-

dence of this.

Though families, like man
himself, do not live on bread

alone, without bread they

suffer and die. Food pro-

grams still need a family ori-

entation. Poor housing, for

further example, has an ad-

verse effect on family stabil-

ity. We urge an expansion of
home ownership programs

for low and moderate-in-

come families, especially the

larger families frequently

neglected in these plans, as

well as programs for low-

rent housing and housing

rehabilitation.

Programs devised to assist

less advantaged families
should at all costs avoid dis-

ruption of the family unit. A
major disruption occurs
when mothers are required

to separate themselves from

their young children for the

sake of added income. Dis-

ruption has too often been

the result of certain welfare

policies which, whether con-

sciously intended or not,

have destroyed rather than

supported family stability;

one such policy we pin-

pointed in our reference to

the “man in the house” rule

when we spoke in a recent

statement on the national so-

cial problem, but others

could be documented. Every

member of each family has a

right to be cared for, not as

an isolated person but as a

person who belongs with and

depends upon a family. We
therefore favor the trend to

25



consider social service pro-

grams, domestic relations

courts and child welfare

casework as involving family

rather than merely individ-

ual dimensions and solutions.

Whenever a family is un-

dermined, society suffers the

loss. There are no insignif-

icant families, as there is no

insignificant person. If fam-

ilies are to function as the

good of society requires, each

must have income propor-

tionate to its needs.

Wages in our country are

usually based upon the work

done, plus productivity.
Little or no consideration is

given to the family situation

of the individual, his marital

status, or the number of chil-

dren in his home. It should

not normally be necessary

for the father of a family to

“moonlight,” seeking em-

ployment from more than

one source to support his wife

and children. Single men and

the married men with fam-
ilies receive the same rates

of pay for the same work. As

a result, one sector of the

population bears a dispro-

portionately large share of

the financial burden of main-

taining the child population,

which means the future na-

tion, except for income tax

benefits, which may unfor-
tunately be cancelled out by

consumer taxes. The effec-

tive solution we are urging

may well require a family
allowance system in the

United States similar to

those adopted by Canada,

many European nations,
Australia, New Zealand and
some governments of South

America. We stand ready to
support enlightened legisla-

tion in this sense.

The challenges and threats

to contemporary family life

may often seem insuperable.

However, the resources of

this nation are more than

sufficient to enhance the se-

curity and prosperity of our

families at home while leav-

ing us free to fulfill our dut-

ies in charity and justice

abroad. The scientific, educa-

tional and financial resources

of our nation cannot be better

utilized than in defense and

development of the family.

The future of civilization it-

self depends upon such crea-

tive use of our resources.

Our concern with im-

proved social conditions and

public policies protective of

the family includes recogni-

tion of the special merits of

some families. We second the
tribute of the Council’s Pas-

toral Constitution to parents

of large families; we add a

further tribute to those par-

ents who, in a tradition that

has been the strength of

American Catholicism, have

provided their children, very

often at great sacrifice, with

26



educational opportunities un-

der religious auspices from

pre-school years to higher

education.

We are mindful of those
families which include dis-

advantaged children and of

families which by adoption

assume full responsibility for

children not born to them.

Adoption corresponds with a

deeply human instinct; it

gives a home to the home-

less and parents to the or-

phaned while at the same

time rewarding the love with

which a family welcomes life

not originally committed to

its keeping.

Likewise praiseworthy is

the unselfishness which
prompts qualified people to

become foster parents to

children who need material,

emotional or spiritual as-

sistance at some point in

their lives. Finally, we offer

a word of encouragement to

our brothers or sisters in

Christ who care for children
in one-parent families. The

sacrifices required to provide

for the physical welfare and

psychological development of

children under these circum-

stances are sometimes extra-

ordinary. Those who thus
spend themselves on behalf

of life and love witness to

the world and the Church a

generosity which cannot fail

to inspire others and to

sanctify themselves.

Further

Threats to Life

At this tense moment in our

history when external wars

and internal violence make

us so conscious of death, an

affirmation of the sanctity of

human life by renewed at-

tention to the family is im-

perative. Let society always

be on the side of life. Let it

never dictate, directly or in-

directly, recourse to the pre-

vention of life or to its

destruction in any of its

phases; neither let it require

as a condition of economic

assistance that any family

yield conscientious determi-

nation of the number of its

children to the decision of

persons or agencies outside

the family.

Stepped-up pressures for

moral and legal acceptance

of directly procured abortion

make necessary pointed
reference to this threat to

the right to life. Reverence

for life demands freedom

from direct interruption of

life once it is conceived. Con-

ception initiates a process

whose purpose is the realiza-

tion of human personality. A
human person, nothing more

and nothing less, is always at

issue once conception has

27



taken place. We expressly
repudiate any contradictory

suggestion as contrary to

Judaeo-Christian traditions

inspired by love for life, and

Anglo-Saxon legal traditions

protective of life and the

person.

Abortion brings to an end

with irreversible finality

both the existence and the

destiny of the developing hu-

man person. Conscious of the
inviolability of life, the

Vatican Council II teaches:

“God, the Lord of life,

has conferred on man

the surpassing ministry

of safeguarding life, a

ministry which must be

fulfilled in a manner

that is worthy of man.

Therefore, from the mo-

ment of its conception

life must be guarded

with the greatest care

while abortion and in-

fanticide are unspeak-

able crimes” (Gaudium

et Spes, 51).

The judgment of the
Church on the evil of termi-

nating life derives from the

Christian awareness that

men are not the masters but
the ministers of life. Hence,

the Council declares:

“.
. . whatever is op-

posed to life itself, such

as any type of murder,

genocide, abortion, eu-

thanasia, or wilful self-

destruction, whatever

violates the integrity of

the human person . . .

all these things and

others of their like are

infamies indeed. They

poison human society
but they do more harm

to those who practice

them than those who

suffer from the injury.

Moreover, they are a

supreme dishonor to the

Creator” (Gaudium et

Spes, 27).

A Note of
Christian Optimism

Pressing concerns of the hour

have led us to consider with

you many of the problems of

family life, together with a

Christian appraisal of them.

The family is, however,

much more than the sum of

its problems. It is, as we said

earlier, the place where the

person occurs, where life be-

gins, where fidelity and

hope are nourished, where

human love reaches its most

intense expression. The fam-

ily is, indeed, that “school of

deeper humanity” of which

the Vatican Council II

speaks. (Gaudium et Spes,

52)

The Christian family is an

image of God and a sign of

28



the Church. It is the com-

munity wherein Christ is

most powerfully preached,

where Christians first hear

the name of God, first learn

to pray, and first express

their faith. In the words and

example of their believing

parents, children come to

know what faith is and how

it must be lived, what life is

and how it must be honored.

For this reason, a spirituality

which is suitable to the con-

temporary family and which

brings all members of the

family together in faith and

hope is, we repeat, the most

urgent need of modern cul-

ture.

Since the family is the

basic unit of human society,

it should be the object of

civilization’s most enlight-

ened concern. Since it is the

basic unit of their life, par-

ishes should make the needs

of the family and the bene-

fits which the family brings

to the parish controlling

norms in the planning of

parish organizations and

activities, liturgical, educa-

tional, charitable and social.

As bishops of the Catholic

Church in the United States,

concerned for its present

well-being and prospects.

our first prayer is for the

families who comprise its

parishes and dioceses. Our

optimism for the future of

the Church, the family of

God, springs largely from

optimism for the future of

the family. In turn, our basis

for optimism for the future

of family life, despite oc-

casional negative signs, rests

upon the persevering hope of

married couples whose re-

sponsibility to life and vo-

cation to live have been the

opening theme of this pas-

toral letter.

As last year we saluted

priests, for their special part

in the work of God, so this

year we salute Christian

spouses who “made to the

image of the living God and

enjoying the authentic dig-

nity of persons, are joined to

one another in equal affec-

tion, harmony of mind and

the work of mutual sanctifi-

cation. Thus, following Christ

Who is the principle of life,
by the sacrifices and joys of

their vocation and through

their faithful love, (they

have) become witnesses of

the mystery of love which

the Lord revealed to the

world by His dying and His

rising up to live again.”

(Gaudium et Spes, 52)

29



Chapter Two

The Family of Nations

We share the deep concern
of thoughtful people in our

times, a concern voiced by

Vatican Council II, that

“the whole human family

has reached an hour of su-

preme crisis” (Gaudium et

Spes, 77). The crisis can ulti-

mately offer great promise

for a more abundant human

life, but at the moment it

portends grave threats to all

life. The threats to life de-

pend on urgent and difficult

decisions concerning war and

peace. In considering these

we share the conviction of
Vatican Council II that the

horror and perversity of

technological warfare “com-

pel us to undertake an eval-

uation of war with an

entirely new attitude (n.

80, emphasis added).

This compelling obligation

is the greater in our case

since we are citizens of a

nation in many ways the

most powerful in the world.

The responsibility of moral

leadership is the greater in

the local Church of a nation

whose arsenals contain the

greatest nuclear potential

for both the harm that we

would wish to impede or the

help it is our obligation to

encourage. We are acutely
aware that our moral posture

and comportment in this

hour of supreme crisis will

be assessed by the judgment

of history and of God.

We renew the affirmation
by the Council that “the

loftier strivings and aspira-

tions of the human race are

in harmony with the mes-

sage of the Gospel” (n. 77).

We speak as witnesses to
that Gospel, aware that the

issues of war and peace test

the relevancy of its message

for our generation, particu-

larly in terms of the service

of life and its dignity. We
seek to speak in the spirit of

that Gospel message, which

30



is at heart a doctrine of non-

violence rather than vio-

lence, of peace understood as

Jesus proclaimed it (cf. Jn.

14:27).

We call upon American
Catholics to evaluate war

with that “entirely new at-

titude” for which the Council

appealed and which may

rightly be expected of all

who, calling themselves

Christians, proclaim their

identity with the Prince of

Peace. We share with all men
of good will the conviction

that a more humane society

will not come “unless each

person devotes himself with

renewed determination to

the cause of peace” (n. 77).

We appeal to policy makers
and statesmen to reflect sob-

erly on the Council teaching

concerning peace and war,

and vigorously to pursue the

search for means by which

at all times to limit and

eventually to outlaw the de-

structiveness of war.

Vatican Council II noted

that “war continues to pro-

duce daily devastation in one

or another part of the world”

(n. 79). The observation has

lost none of its truth in the

period since the Council

ended; indeed, there have

been further grievous out-

breaks of war and aggres-

sion.

Of one mind with the

Council, we condemn with-

out qualification wars of ag-

gression however their true

character may sometimes be

veiled. Whatever case there

may have seemed to exist in

other times for wars fought

for the domination of another

nation, such a case can no

longer be imagined given the

circumstances of modern
warfare, the heightened sense

of international mutuality

and the increasingly avail-

able humane means to the

realization of that mutuality.

We join wholeheartedly in
the Council’s condemnation

of wars fought without lim-

itation. We recognize the
right of legitimate self-de-

fense and, in a world society

still unorganized, the neces-

sity for recourse to armed

defense and to collective se-

curity action in the absence

of a competent authority on

the international level and

once peaceful means have

been exhausted. But we seek

to limit warfare and to hu-

manize it, where it remains

a last resort, in the maxi-

mum degree possible. Most
of all, we urge the enlisting

of the energies of all men of

good will in forging the in-

struments of peace, to the

end that war may at long

last be outlawed.

Meanwhile, we are grate-

fully conscious that “those

who are pledged to the serv-

ice of their country as mem-

31



bers of its armed forces

should regard themselves as

agents of security and free-

dom on behalf of their peo-

ple. As long as they fulfill

this role properly, they are

making a genuine contribu-

tion to the establishment of

peace” (Gaudium et Spes,

79 ).

In the Christian message

peace is not merely the ab-

sence of war. Ultimately, of

course, it presupposes that

presence within and among

men of a positive principle
of life and unity which is

none other than the divine

life to which the Church

bears witness, of which

Christ in His Church is the

source. The soul, then, of a

peaceful society is divine

charity. But justice, the great

concern of the well-ordered

state and the justification for

its existence, is the founda-

tion of the organized society.

Therefore, peace cannot be

reduced solely to the main-

tenance of a balance of

power between enemies; nor

is it to be brought about by

dictatorship, whether this be

the imposition of the sheer

will of a ruler, a party or

even a majority. It is an en-

terprise of justice and must

be built up ceaselessly in

seeking to satisfy the all-

embracing demands of the

common good. This is the

point of Pope Paul’s positive,

dynamic concept of peace:

the modern word for peace

is development. Peace there-

fore presupposes the frater-

nal confidence which
manifests itself in a firm

determination to respect
other persons and peoples,

above all their human dig-

nity, and to collaborate with

them in the pursuit of the

shared hopes of mankind.

Arms Control

It is in nuclear warfare,

even in its “cold” phase or

form, that mankind con-

fronts the moral issue of

modern war in its extreme

case. This has become a sit-

uation in which two adver-

saries possess and deploy

weapons which, if used

against each other, could an-

nihilate their respective civ-

ilizations and even threaten

the survival of the human

race. Nothing more drama-

tically suggests the anti-life

direction of technological

warfare than the neutron

bomb; one philosopher de-

clares that the manner in

which it would leave entire

cities intact, but totally

without life, makes it, per-

32



haps, the symbol of our civ-

ilization. It would be per-

verse indeed if the Christian

conscience were to be un-

concerned or mute in the

face of the multiple moral

aspects of these awesome

prospects.

It is now a quarter cen-

tury since Pope Pius XII

summoned that conscience

to a “War on War.” He

pointed out World War II’s

“unspeakable atrocities,” the

“image of a hell upon which

anyone who nourishes hu-

mane sentiments in his heart

can have no more ardent

wish than to close the door

forever.” He warned against

the further progress of “hu-

man inventions . . . directed
to destruction,” and pleaded

that to the recognition of

the immorality of wars of

aggression there be added

“the threat of a judicial in-

tervention of the nations

and of a punishment in-

flicted on the aggressor by

the United Nations, so that

war may always feel itself
proscribed, always under the

watchful guard of preven-

tive action.” He argued that

then “humanity, issuing
from the dark night in

which it has been sub-

merged for so great a length

of time, will be able to greet

the dawn of a new and bet-

ter era in its history”

(Christmas broadcast

,

1944).

Vatican Council II, in a

solemn declaration, endorsed

“the condemnation of total

warfare issued by recent

popes” and stated:

“Every act of war di-

rected to the indiscrim-

i n a t e destruction of

whole cities or vast

areas with their inhabi-

tants is a crime against

God and man which

merits firm and unequi-

vocal condemnation”

(Gaudium et Spes, 80).

The Council explicitly

condemned the use of weap-

ons of mass destruction, but

abstained from condemning

the possession of such weap-

ons to deter “possible enemy

attack” (n. 81). Though not

passing direct judgment on

this strategy of deterrence,

the Council did declare that

“men should be convinced

that the arms race in which

so many countries are en-

gaged is not a safe way to

preserve a steady peace. Nor

is the so-called ‘balance’ re-

sulting from this race a pure

and authentic peace. Rather

than being eliminated there-

by, the causes of war

threaten to grow gradually

stronger. . . . Therefore it

must be said again: the

arms race is an utterly

treacherous trap for hu-

33



manity, and one which en-

snares the poor to an in-

tolerable degree” (n. 81).

The Council did not call

for unilateral disarmament;

Christian morality is not

lacking in realism. But it did

call for reciprocal or collec-

tive disarmament “proceed-

ing at an equal pace accord-

ing to agreement and backed

up by authentic and work-

able safeguards” (n. 82).

There are hopeful signs that

such a formula may be
strengthened by the Partial

Test Ban Treaty and that

the commitment under the

Non-Proliferation Treaty to

proceed to a negotiation of

balanced reductions of nu-

clear weapons—at the same
time extending the use of

nuclear power for peaceful

development of the needy

nations under adequate in-

spection safeguards — may
provide a positive, sane pat-

tern for the future. We
earnestly pray so, commend-

ing. the furtherance of these

hopes to responsible political

leaders and to the support

of all citizens.

Meanwhile, it is greatly

to be desired that such pros-

pects not be dashed by irra-

tional resolves to keep ahead

in “assured destruction”
capability. Rather it is to

be hoped that the early rati-

fication by the Senate of the

Non-Proliferation Treaty

—

which in essence is a Treaty

between the U.S.S.R. and

the U.S. and other nations

—will hasten discussion of
across the board reductions

by the big powers. Despite,

and even because of, the

provocations in Eastern Eur-

ope and elsewhere, the

United States should con-

tinue steps to create a better

climate for these discussions,

such as taking the lead in

inviting the UN Atomic
Energy Commission and

other organizations and for-

eign states to visit its nu-

clear facilities, and scrupul-

ously reviewing all commit-

ments for the sale, loan or

lease of armaments.

The Council’s position on

the arms race was clear. To

recall it: “Therefore, we de-

clare once again: the arms

race is an utterly treacher-

ous trap for humanity. . . .

It is much to be feared that

if this race persists, it will

eventually spawn all the

lethal ruin whose path it is

now making ready” (n. 81).

Nonetheless, the nuclear

race goes on. The latest act

in the continuing nuclear

arms race is no doubt the

U.S. decision to build a

“thin” anti-ballistic missile

system to defend against

possible nuclear attack by

another world power. This

34



decision has been widely in-

terpreted as the prelude to

a “thick” ABM system to
defend against possible nu-

clear attack.

In themselves, such anti-

ballistic missiles are purely

defensive, designed to limit

the damage to the United

States from nuclear attack.

Nevertheless, by upsetting

the present strategic balance,

the so-called balance of ter-

ror, there is grave danger

that a United States ABM
system will incite other na-

tions to increase their offen-

sive nuclear forces with the

seeming excuse of a need to

restore the balance.

Despite the danger of trig-

gering an expanded escala-

tion of the arms race the

pressures for a “thick” ABM
deployment persist.

We seriously question
whether the present policy

of maintaining nuclear su-

periority is meaningful for

security. There is no advan-

tage to be gained by nuclear

superiority, however it is

computed, when each side is

admittedly capable of in-

flicting overwhelming dam-

age on the other, even after

being attacked first. Such

effective parity has been

operative for some years.

Any effort to achieve su-

periority only leads to ever-

higher levels of armaments

as it forces the side with the

lesser capability to seek to

maintain its superiority. In

the wake of this action-

reaction phenomenon comes

a decrease in both stability

and security.

The National Conference

of Catholic Bishops pledges

its united effort toward

forming a climate of public

opinion for peace, mindful

of the Council’s advice that

“government officials . . .

depend on public opinion

and feeling to the greatest

possible extent” (n. 82). We
will therefore, through exist-

ing and improved agencies,

support national programs

of education for Catholic

Americans and for all
Americans in collaboration

with all religious groups and

other organizations.

With Gaudium et Spes, we

commend the arduous and

unceasing efforts of states-

men and specialists in the

field of arms control and

disarmament, and to add

our own encouragement of

systematic studies in this

field. As the Council ap-

pealed to Catholic scholars

throughout the world to par-

ticipate more fully in such

studies, so we call upon in-

tellectuals in the Church in

our land to bring scholarly

competence and their pow-

ers of persuasion to that

35



“war on war” which the

modern Popes have without

exception pleaded that we

wage.

We urge Catholics, and
indeed all our countrymen,

to make a ceaseless vigil of

prayers for peace and for

all those who are charged

with the delicate and diffi-

cult negotiations of disarma-

ment. Such prayers provide

the most obvious and ap-

propriate occasion for ecu-

menical services bringing to-

gether all in our communi-

ties who cherish the blessed

vision of peace heralded by

the Hebrew prophets and

preached by Christ and His

Apostles. We cannot but
question the depth of the

commitment to peace of

people of religious back-

ground who no longer pray

for peace. But those who

only pray for peace, leaving

to others the arduous work

for peace, the dialogue for

peace, have a defective the-

ology concerning the rela-

tion between human action

and the accomplishment of

that will of God in which

is our peace. So, too, those

who, neglectful of the part

of prayer, rely only on their

own power, or on the pool-

ing of merely human re-

sources on intelligence, en-

ergy and even good will,

forget the wisdom of Scrip-

ture: “If the Lord does not

build the house, in vain the

masons toil; if the Lord does

not guard the city, in vain

the sentries watch” (Psalm

127, 1-2).

The International

Community

The Council Fathers recog-

nized that not even ending

the nuclear arms race, which

itself cannot be accom-

plished without the full co-

operation of the interna-

tional community, would en-

sure the permanent removal

of the awesome threat of

modern war. Nor would dis-

armament alone, even as-

suming it to be complete

and across the board, re-

move the causes of war.

“This goal undoubtedly re-

quires the establishment of

some universal public au-

t h o r i t y acknowledged as

such by all, and endowed

with effective power to

safeguard, on the behalf of

all, security, regard for jus-

tice and respect for rights”

(n. 82).

Such an authority, fur-

thermore, is required by the

growing, ever more explicit

36



interdependence of nil men

and nations as a result of

which the common good “to-

day takes on an increasingly

universal complexion and

consequently involves rights

and duties with respect to

the whole human race”

(n. 26 ).

Therefore political leaders

should . . extend their

thoughts and their spirit be-

yond the confines of their

own nation, put aside na-

tional selfishness and am-

bition to dominate other na-

tions, and nourish a pro-

found reverence for the

whole of humanity, which

is already making, its way

so laboriously toward great-

er unity” (n. 82 ).

We commend the efforts
of world statesmen, particu-

larly those of our own na-

tion, who seek to extend the

spirit and practice of coop-

e r a t i o n in international

agencies and regional asso-

ciations of nations, with the

object not only of termi-

nating or preventing war,

and of building up a body of

international law, but also

of removing the causes of

war through positive pro-

grams.

Since war remains a mel-

ancholy fact of life today,

we believe the United States

not only should insist on ad-

herence to and the applica-

tion by all nations of exist-

ing international conven-

tions or treaties on the laws

of war, such as the revised

Geneva Convention relative

to the treatment of prison-

ers of war, but should take

the lead in seeking to up-

date them. Certain forms of

warfare, new and old, should

be outlawed, and practices

in dealing with civilian pop-

ulations, prisoners of war

and refugees are always in

need of review and reform.

Here, too, our dependence

on responsible writers, in-

formed speakers and com-

petent critics is crucial to

the cause of peace. Hence

we encourage Catholic schol-

ars to undertake systematic

studies of new developments,

theories and practices in

warfare, including guerrilla

warfare, revolution and
“wars of liberation.” Chang-

ing political patterns, im-

proved techniques of com-

munication, new methods of

remote controls and of sur-

veillance of individuals and

communities alike made pos-

sible by science, as well as

shifting ethical standards,

make it the vocation of de-

vout intellectuals, both as

citizens of their own nations

and servants of the common

good of mankind, to bring

informed competence to the

illumination, discussion and

resolution of the complex

37



issues, many of them moral,

arising from all these.

A Catholic position of op-
position to compulsory
peacetime military service,

first formulated on the level

of the Holy See by Pope

Benedict XV, has had for

its premise the fact that

such service has been a con-

tributing cause of the breed-

ing of actual wars, a part of

the “great armaments” and

“armed peace” security con-

cept, and, in the words of

Cardinal Gasparri in a let-

ter to Lloyd George, the

cause of such great evils for

more than a century that the

cure of these evils can only

be found in the suppression

of this system. In the spirit

of this position, we welcome

the voices lifted up among

our political leaders which

ask for a total review of the

draft system and the

establishment of voluntary

military service in a profes-

sional army with democratic

safeguards and for clear

purposes of adequate de-

fense. Our call for the end

of any draft system at home

which, in practice, amounts

at times to compulsory

peacetime military service

is in direct line with pre-

vious resolutions of the hier-

archy of the United States

on compulsory military
training (cf. Our Bishops

Speak
, pp. 234, 237).

Apart from the question

of war itself, we deem it
opportune here to reiterate

the Council’s condemnation

of genocide, the methodical

extermination of an entire

people, nation or ethnic mi-

nority for reasons connected

with race, religion or status

such as that undertaken by

the Nazis against the Jews

among their own citizens and

later against all the Jewish

people, as well as so-called

“gypsies.” We would urge
United States ratification of

the United Nations Conven-

tion on this subject and of

every other sound imple-

m e n t i n g instrument by
which the United Nations

Declaration of Human Rights
can be translated from the

level of ideals to that of

actuality. Furthermore, we

urge increased support by

our own countrymen and

citizens of all nations of all

international programs con-

sistent with the protection

and promotion of the sanc-

tity of human life and the

dignity of the human person

in times of war and peace.

We earnestly appeal to
our own government and to

all governments to give the

elimination of the present

international “war system”

a priority consistent with

the damaging effect of mas-

sive armament programs on

all the objectives of the good

38



society to which enlightened

governments give priorities:

education, public health, a

true sense of security, pros-

perity, maximum liberty, the
flourishing of the humane

arts and sciences, in a word

the service of life itself.

Thus can we strive to move

away, as reason and religion

demand, from the “war sys-

tem” to an international sys-

tem in which unilateral re-

course to force is increas-

ingly restricted.

This will require interna-

t i o n a 1 peacemaking and

peace-keeping machinery. To

this end we urge all to sup-

port efforts for a stronger

and more effective United

Nations that it may become

a true instrument of peace

and justice among nations.

In this respect the peace

motivation of Pope Paul’s

public support of the United

Nations by his moral author-

ity and teaching office at

the time of his visit to that

body on its anniversary

should be normative for

Catholics.

We would welcome in of-
ficial pronouncements of our

own and other governments,

as well as in the increased

support given to the United

Nations and associated agen-

cies by the citizens of all

nations, a greater interest in

and direction toward the es-

tablishment of that univer-

sal public authority which

the Council Fathers urged.

We recognize that any use
of police action by such an

international authority, or,

in the meantime, by the UN
as presently constituted, or

by duly constituted regional

agencies, must be carefully

subject to covenants openly

arrived at and freely ac-

cepted, covenants spelling

out clear norms such as that

of proportionate force; here,

again, the work of qualified

and conscientious specialists

is indispensable.

Turning to the more posi-

tive aspects of the building

of an international commu-

nity and the duties of us as

Americans in this matter,

we deplore the lack of a

stable, persevering national

concern for the promotion of

the international common

good. This is reflected in the

fickleness of public interest

in and Congressional support

of foreign aid. It is reflected

also in a seeming insensitiv-

ity to the importance of

trade agreements beneficial

to developing nations. A like
lack of generosity, danger-

ous to the fully human com-

mon good, is present in the

increasingly bold linking, of

contraceptive programs, even

when superficially volun-

tary, to needed aid programs.

39



Future aid and trade assist-

ance programs should be-

come increasingly multilat-

eral; they should never

merely serve national self-

interest except to the extent

that national interest is gen-

uinely part and parcel of the

general good of the human

community.

Because of the war in

Vietnam, and the growing

preoccupation with the so-

cial problems of our cities,

there is the peril of an up-

surge of exaggerated forms

of nationalism and isolation-

ism which the teachings of

all churches reprove and the

experiences of World War

II had, we hoped, forever

discredited.

It is the duty of our poli-

tical leadership, of citizens

and especially of believers

who acknowledge the broth-

erhood of man, to promote

and develop the spirit of in-

ternational concern, cooper-

ation and understanding.

As the Council noted “. .

.

there arises a surpassing

need for renewed education

of attitudes and for new

inspiration in the area of

public opinion. Those who

are dedicated to the work

of education, particularly

of the young, or who mold

public opinion should regard

as their most weighty task

the effort to instruct all in

fresh sentiments of peace”

(n. 82 ).

To assist the agencies and

institutions of the Catholic

Church in the United States

in their response to this

“most weighty task,” the

Catholic Bishops have re-

cently established a Division

of World Justice and Peace,

corresponding to the newly

established Vatican Commis-

sion. It is our desire that

the Division will stimulate

renewed efforts in this field,

and coordinate whenever

possible such efforts with

those of other Christian

bodies in an ecumenical

framework. We call upon all
men of conscience, all public

spirited citizens, to dedicate

themselves with fresh en-

ergy to this work.

We believe that the tal-
ents and resources of our

land are so abundant that

we may promote the com-

mon good of nations at no

expense to the vitally neces-

sary works of urban and

rural reconstruction in our

own country. The latter are

the first order of domestic

policy, just as the former

should be the first order of

foreign policy. Neither
should be neglected, both

being equally urgent; in the

contemporary and develop-

ing world order their for-

tunes are intertwined.

40



rt
Vietnam

In a previous statement we

ventured a tentative judg-

ment that, on balance, the

U.S. presence in Vietnam

was useful and justified.

Since then American
Catholics have entered vig-

orously into the national de-

bate on this question, which,

explicitly or implicitly, is

going deeply into the moral

aspects of our involvement

in Vietnam. In this debate,

opinions among Catholics

appear as varied as in our

society as a whole; one can-

not accuse Catholics of either

being partisans of any one

point of view or of being

unconcerned. In our demo-

cratic system the fundamen-

tal right of political dissent

cannot be denied, nor is ra-

tional debate on public

policy decisions of govern-

ment in the light of moral

and political principles to be

discouraged. It is the duty

of the governed to analyze

responsibly the concrete is-

sues of public policy.

In assessing our country’s

involvement in Vietnam we

must ask: Have we already

reached, or passed, the point

where the principle of pro-

portionality becomes deci-

sive? How much more of
our resources in men and

money should we commit to

this struggle, assuming an

acceptable cause or inten-

tion? Has the conflict in

Vietnam provoked inhuman

dimensions of suffering?

Would not an untimely with-

drawal be equally disas-

trous?

Granted that financial

considerations are necessar-

ily subordinate to ethical

values in any moral ques-

tion, nonetheless many won-

der if perhaps a measure of

the proportions in this, as

in any modern war, may be

reflected in the amounts in-

evitably lost to education,

poverty-relief and positive

works of social justice at

home and abroad (including

Southeast Asia) as a result

of the mounting budgets for

this and like military oper-

ations. This point has fre-

quently been raised by the

Popes, notably by Pope Pius

XII who invoked the princi-

ple of proportionality in his

analysis of the morality even

of defensive wars, particu-

larly when these involve

A.B.C. elements (atomic,

biological, chemical) and

losses disproportionate to the

“injustice tolerated” (Ad-

dress to Military Doctors,

Oct. 19, 1953).

While it would be beyond

41



our competence to propose

any technical formulas for

bringing the Vietnam War

to an end, we welcome the

bombing halt and pray for

the success of the negotia-

tions now underway.

Meanwhile there are moral

lessons to be learned from

our involvement in Vietnam

that will apply to future

cases. One might be that

military power and tech-

nology do not suffice, even

with the strongest resolve,

to restore order or accom-

plish peace. As a rule in-

ternal political conflicts are

too complicated to be solved

by the external application

of force and technology.

Another might be the

realization that some evils

existing in the world, evils

such as undernutrition, eco-

n o m i c frustration, social
stagnation and political in-

justices, may be more read-

ily attacked and corrected

through non-military means,

than by military efforts to

counteract the subversive

forces bent on their exploita-

tion.

In addition, may we not

hope that violence will be

universally discredited as a

means of remedying human

ills, and that the spirit of

love “may overcome the

barriers that divide, cherish

the bonds of mutual charity,

understand others and par-

don those who have done

them wrong”? (Pacem in

Terris, Article 171).

The Role of Conscience

The war in Vietnam typifies

the issues which present and

future generations will be

less willing to leave entirely

to the normal political and

bureaucratic processes of

national decision-making. It

is not surprising that those

who are most critical, even

intemperate in their discus-

sion of war as an instrument

of national policy or as a

ready means to the settling

even of wrongs, are among

the young; the burden of

killing and dying falls prin-

cipally of them.

There is sometimes ground

for question as to whether

the attitudes of some toward

military duty do not spring

from cowardice. In this

problem, as in all crises

which test generosity and

heroism, cases of moral as

well as physical cowardice

doubtless occur. But a blan-

ket charge of this would

be unfair to those young

people who are clearly will-

42



ing to suffer social ostracism

and even prison terms be-

cause of their opposition to

a particular war. One must

conclude that for many of

our youthful protesters, the

motives spring honestly from

a principled opposition to a

given war as pointless or

immoral.

Nor can it be said that

such conscientious objection

to war, as war is waged in

our times, is entirely the

result of subjective consid-

erations and without refer-

ence to the message of the

Gospel and the teaching of

the Church; quite the con-

trary, frequently conscien-

tious dissent reflects the in-

fluence of the principles

which inform modern papal

teaching, the Pastoral Con-

stitution and a classical tra-

dition of moral doctrine in

the Church, including, in

fact, the norms for the moral

evaluation of a theoretically

just war.

The enthusiasm of many

young people for new pro-

grams of service to fellow

humans in need may be
proof that some traditional

forms of patriotism are in

process of being supple-

mented by a new spirit of

dedication to humanity and

to the moral prestige of one’s

own nation. This new spirit
must be taken seriously; it

may not always match the

heroism of the missionaries

and the full measure of the

life of faith, but it is not

contradictory to these and

may open up new forms of

Christian apostolate.

As witnesses to a spiritual

tradition which accepts en-

lightened conscience, even

when honestly mistaken, as

the immediate arbiter of

moral decisions, we can only

feel reassured by this evi-

dence of individual respon-

sibility and the decline of

uncritical conformism to

patterns some of which in-

cluded strong moral ele-

ments, to be sure, but also

included political, social,

cultural and like controls not

necessarily in conformity

with the mind and heart of

the Church.

If war is ever to be out-

lawed, and replaced by more

humane and enlightened in-

stitutions to regulate conflicts

among nations, institutions

rooted in the notion of uni-

versal common good, it will

be because the citizens of

this and other nations have

rejected the tenets of exag-

gerated nationalism and in-

sisted on principles of non-

violent political and civic

action in both the domestic,

and international spheres.

We therefore join with the
Council Fathers in praising

43



“those who renounce the

use of violence in the

vindication of their

rights and who resort

to methods of defense

which are otherwise
available to weaker
parties, provided that

this can be done without

injury to the rights and

duties of others or of

the community itself”

(n. 78).

It is in this light that we

seek to interpret and apply

to our own situation the ad-

vice of Vatican Council II

on the treatment of consci-

entious objectors. The Coun-

cil endorsed laws that

“make humane provision

for the care of those who

for reasons of consci-

ence refuse to bear arms,

provided, however, that

they accept some other

form of service to the

human community” (n.

79).

The present laws of this

country, however, provide

only for those whose reasons

of conscience are grounded

in a total rejection of the use

of military force. This form

of conscientious objection de-

serves the legal provision

made for it, but we consider
that the time has come to

urge that similar considera-

tion be given those whose

reasons of conscience are

more personal and specific.

We therefore recommend
a modification of the Selec-

tive Service Act making it

possible, although not easy,

for so-called selective con-

scientious objectors to refuse

— without fear of imprison-
ment or loss of citizenship —
to serve in wars which they

consider unjust or in branches

of service (e.g., the strategic

nuclear forces) which would

subject them to the perform-

ance of actions contrary to

deeply held moral convic-

tions about indiscriminate

killing. Some other form of

service to the human com-

munity should be required

of those so exempted.

Whether or not such modi-

fications in our laws are in

fact made, we continue to

hope that, in the all-impor-

tant issue of war and peace,

all men will follow their

consciences. We can do no
better than to recall, as did

the Vatican Council, “the

permanent binding force of

universal natural law and its

all embracing principles,” to

which “man’s conscience it-

self gives ever more em-

phatic voice.”

In calling so persistently in

this Pastoral for studies on

the application of sound mor-

al principles to new dimen-

sions of changes in the

problems of war and peace,

44



we are mindful of our own

responsibility to proclaim the

Gospel of peace and to teach

the precepts of both natural

and revealed divine law con-

cerning the establishing of

peace everywhere on earth

(n. 79). We therefore make
our own the Council’s judg-

ment on “the deeper causes

of war,” sins like envy, mis-

trust and egoism. We echo
the warning given by Pope

Paul at the United Nations:

“Today as never before,

in an era marked by

such human progress,

there is need for an ap-

peal to the moral con-

science of man. For the

danger comes not from

progress, nor from sci-

ence — on the contrary,
if properly utilized these

could resolve many of

the grave problems
which beset mankind.

The real danger comes

from man himself, who
has at his disposal ever

more powerful instru-

ments, which can be

used as well for destruc-

tion as for the loftiest

conquests.”

The hour has indeed struck

for “conversion,” for person-

al transformation, for in-

terior renewal. We must
once again begin to think of

man in a new way, and of
human life with a new ap-
preciation of its worth, its

dignity and its call to eleva-

tion to the level of the life

of God Himself. All this re-

quires that, with refreshed

purpose and deepened faith,

we follow the urging of St.

Paul that we “put on the

new man, which has been

created according to God in

justice and holiness of

truth” (Eph. 4:23).

a.
Conclusion

Christians believe God to be

the “source of life” (cf. Jn.

5,26) and of love since “love

comes from God” (cf. 1 Jn.

4.7)

. “God is love” (1 Jn.

4.8) and man has been made
in His image and likeness

(Gen. 1,26). Thus, man is
most himself when he honors

life and lives by love. Then

he is most like to God.

The doctrine and defense

of life require a renewed

spirituality in the Church.

Such a spirituality will re-

affirm the sacred character

of married love through

which life is begun, the dig-

nity of the family within

which love brings life to ma-

turity, and the blessed vision

of peace in which life is

shared by men and nations

45



in a world community of

love.

These themes, all of which

touch on life, we have ex-

plored in terms of the fam-

ily, the commonwealth of

nations and some of the

anti-life forces which threat-

en these.

In Her defense of human

life the Church in our day

makes her own, as did Moses,

the words by which God

Himself reduces our per-

plexities to a clear, inescap-

able choice:

“I call heaven and earth

to witness against you

this day, that I have set

before you life and death

. . . therefore, choose

life that you and your

descendants may live

. .
” (Deut. 30,19).

I

Printed in the U.S.A. by Our Sunday Visitor Inc.



The

Church

in our Day

A collective pastoral of the American Hierarchy

on the mystery of the Church,

on her nature and function,

prepared in the light

of the Dogmatic Constitution

on the Church

adopted by Vatican Council II

and of certain

doctrinal problems of the hour

THE 80-PAGE PASTORAL ISSUED BY THE BISHOPS

OF THE UNITED STATES IN NOVEMBER 1967

AND RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION

JANUARY 21, 1968

Single copy 250. Quantity rates available.

Order from: Publications Office,

U.S. Catholic Conference,

1312 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005

47



2-69070CTTTTT9TTTTfcO

SERIALS RECORD

MEMORIAL LIBRARY

UMV OF NOTRE CAME
NOTRE DAME •IN 46556

IBHMflMi I
H liliii

IKMI

I
ill . 1 . I .

!

illllllillglll

im#mumill 1 1 .—I

'

HUNT I NGTON

END 46750

NON-PROFIT ORGN

U S POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT NO 44