Madam, - Apart from attributing things to me which I never said, Fr Fagan (January 16th) makes a number of important points. He develops my point that slavery was an institution that was for the most part simply taken for granted. It is true that Our Lord and St Paul did not take issue with slavery as an institution, but neither did they take issue with the totalitarian nature of the state they lived in. It was only during the 19th century that, under the influence of Marx and others, institutions as such came in for criticism.
Despite its provenance, this criticism was taken up by Catholic theologians and, eventually, by Pope Leo XIII. Also important is Fr Fagan's reminder that, irrespective of what popes and councils teach, most people follow the advice given from the pulpit or in the confessional. Such advice is often not that of the authoritative teaching. In the past, it was often rigorously legalistic and so inhuman; today it tends to be laxist.
This makes it even more urgent that pastors and theologians are in tune with what the Church actually teaches and give the reasons for that teaching. Since Humanae Vitae that has, generally speaking, not been the case.
I am not suggesting a return to the blind obedience of the past, as Ms Margo McKay claims (January 7th). The obedience of faith is always of a faith seeking understanding, searching to know the truth more deeply.
The direction given to the debate by Fr Fagan has clouded what I originally wanted to question in my article in The Word, namely a widespread tendency to decide for ourselves what our moral principles are using an à la carte attitude to the Church's moral teaching. This is, it seems to me, because of the prevailing moral relativism in society which finds an echo in the subjective notion of conscience within certain currents of Catholic theology. These currents Pope Benedict XVI never accepted, then or now.
As I pointed out in my previous letter, the then Prof Ratzigner summed up what I tried to say in the same commentary from which Fr Fagan, mischievously but inaccurately attempts to quote Ratzinger against me: "that obedience to conscience means an end to subjectivism, a turning aside from blind arbitrariness, and produces conformity with objective norms of moral action". The object of the Church's moral teaching is to confirm and clarify those norms, most of which are known intuitively but others of which need to be spelt out and concretised, such as how we as Catholics should obey the Third Commandment on keeping the Sabbath.
If only Catholics would indeed try to live by their conscience! If in the past bishops, priests, and laity had followed their conscience as directed by Church teaching, the scandals would have been avoided. If we did so today, we would soon find ourselves increasingly at loggerheads with contemporary society and its values and even some civil laws. But we would probably have a healthier and more intellectually vibrant society.
Kevin Healy (January 7th) appositely quotes 1 John 3:21, which is the goal of Christian living: "If we cannot be condemned by our own conscience, we need not be afraid of God's presence." But if we are condemned by our conscience, God has provided a remedy repentance. Conscience, which can be suppressed but never be completely silenced, heals the wounds of sin by prompting us to confess our sins and receive God's forgiveness and peace of heart, knowing that "God is greater than our conscience" (1 John 3:20). He is mercy and forgiveness. - Yours, etc,
D. VINCENT TWOMEY SVD Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology, Maynooth, Co Kildare.