From: jocallag@artin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: submission to teaching, conscience, ... sigh.
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:23:09 GMT

In article <6439@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry) writes:
>
>I'm not suggesting that Newman is wrong, or that we can disregard him, or
>that I don't think my view is the same as his. What I meant was that Newman
>explicitly addresses the case where the pope is purportedly commanding
>something which is wrong: that much is clear from a literal reading of the
>text. Nor am I suggesting that any other principle than that enunciated by
>Newman applies in the other sort of case (viz., where something is
>proscribed which one holds not to be sinful); taking Newman strictly
>literally, as it were in a fundamentalist way, (I use the term, I assure
>you, not to give offense but as an objective description) is plainly
>inappropriate, for the reason that Steve's post makes clear: in cases of
>this latter type it is not the case that conscience will prompt one to _act_
>(Steve pointed out that one generally could not lay claim to a prompting of
>conscience to have sex at a particular time); and that is what one would
>require if Newman (mutatis mutandis) is taken strictly literally. I don't
>think, however, that the line Butler proposes is at all contrary to the
>spirit of Newman's thinking; Newman himself is silent on the matter, however,
>and that is why I said that the quote under discussion does not resolve the
>matter unequivocally.

Thank you for the clarification.  The purpose of my posting was in a way to
suggest that though the context of Newman's remarks was very much dependent
upon the situation he was confronted with, the literal meaning of what he said
ought not to be so strictly confined to that context if we are going to consider
his insights useful at all.

>
>You missed it. "[Fr John McHugh] makes no attempt to claim that _Humanae
>Vitae_'s teaching has infallible status and he is emphatic that a Catholic
>who conscientiously and after due reflection and consideration of the
>authoritative teaching, concludes that he is not bound by this teaching is
>still a perfectly loyal Catholic, and, it is implied, can follow his
>conscience. So far as I know, Fr McHugh's position has never been refuted.
>It is all the more impressive as coming from one who had no personal
>difficulty in accepting the papal teaching on birth control as true, and
>indeed saw difficulties in adopting any other position." [Butler, Theology
>of Vatican II, pp 208-9].

I do now recall this from way back.  My problem was that your recent quotes
seemed to be centered on the fallible/infallible issue, and not the freedom
of conscience/religiosum obsequium question, and that you could not go from
the former to the latter.

But as far as the quote you provide.  Neither Steve nor I have denied this
ever.  But this quote on the face of it does not go into the specifics of
"due reflection and consideration of the authoritatie teaching."  This clearly
bears upon the issue of "religiosum obsequium" but does not give an analysis
of its requirements and considerations.  Given what it says, it seems that
FR. McHugh, and given the title of Bishop Butler's book, they both want
to be seen as within the Church's teaching on the issue.  So we would need
a more detailed analysis from either as to when conscience can claim to be in
the situation where it can act against the teaching.  I know some people who
say they have considered the issue and conclude that they are not bound by it,
who cannot say where the teaching most recently and famously has been 
enunciated; I know some people who can do this  but have not read it, but
none the less think they have considered the issue and are not bound; I know
some people who have read it who think the onus probandi is on the Church,
I know some people who think the onus probandi is on their conscience, but that
they do not have to have the certainty "as in the presence of God" that Newman
describes.  So to say to a Catholic public that varies greatly in education
on Church teaching on conscience, especially my generation (just turned 30) that
after considering their conscience, if they do not feel bound by the teaching
they can go ahead and act against it, without educating them on precisely when
they can consider that there conscience has this right, seems to me irresponsible.  That is not to say that either Fr. McHugh, or Bishop Butler is so irresponsible.  They may not be writing books for the general populace.  But even as specialists to specialists it seems they ought to indicate how what they say about
consideration of conscience fits inot church teaching on religiosum obsequium and
the onus probandi, and the certainty the conscience must have.  And what is
one's responsibility if one finds oneself in such a case beyond simply acting
on conscience, as to the continuing conflict between conscience and the
teaching of the Church?

Let me give an anecdote.  My wife and I recently participated as a newly
married couple in a pre-Cana retreat for the engaged.  We were supposed to
give the talk on Christian marriage following the priests talk on the same
subject.  This is what we had to follow: Priest: "I can tell you on my
authority as a moral theologian that all of you can in good conscience use
any form of artificial contraception you wish that is not abortafacient."
Thanks for the great lead in father.  By the way, to my knowledge the priest
is not what one would ordinarily call a moral theologian, but teaches Architectural History at the local junior college.

>
>I wonder whether the reason for our disagreement hinges on different
>understandings of the word _obsequium_. If I remember correctly, Steve (or
>you?) prefers a reading such as "submission", but the difficulty with this
>is that _Lumen Gentium_ implies precisely that there are varying degrees of
>_obsequium_, while submission can either be given or not given. So I am sure
>that other readings such as "respect" or "deference" are more accurate.
>However, I certainly don't wish to imply that conscience has an easier time
>of it in the second type of situation: my point was that the test has to be
>different from that proposed by Newman for type one (act/refuse to act if
>your conscience before God tells you you must); perhaps "act/refuse to act
>if your conscience before God tells you with certainty that it is not wrong
>to do so". I think that is as rigorous a criterion as Newman's; but it is
>phrased differently from his.

I'm not sure why you think "respect" or "deference" would more adequately
capture "obsequium".  If "submit" is an either or, binary sort of act, as you
seem to think, and I do not, it seems that "respect" and "deference" are
at least as binary, if not more so; so they seem even less adequate as terms
attempting to capture any sort of grades of "obsequium" that might be present.
However I will defer to the Church's own explanations of what "obsequium" 
means.  Do either McHugh or Butler have anything to say on the presence
of "obsequium" in Lumen Gentium, and if so do they spell it out as "respect"
or "deference."

>
>I hope I've explained myself better now. No, I don't think the _onus
>probandi_ is less grave; Newman's 'legislation' needs to be amended to take
>explicit account of a different set of circumstances from the one he
>addresses.

Which was the point of my post.

By the way.  I am glad that we seem to be heading toward a more civil tone
with each other.  I had considered that my more recent postings to you had
crossed the line, and that perhaps I would apologize privately in E-mail.
However, I will do it publicly.  I apologize.  I only ask that you understand
the difficulty of judging when sarcasm and irony have crossed the line to
offense.

Peace,
John O'Callaghan


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic