Madam, - I am saddened by Dr Kevin O'Reilly's sweeping generalisations, tirade of rash judgments and unfounded assertions, in his dismissal of the authority of facts (January 25th).
There can be different understandings and interpretations of facts, but they can be discussed objectively and reasonably. He claims to be convinced by the soundness of arguments in favour of Humanae Vitae, but he seems to be ignorant of the facts of the case.
The world's bishops, in the solemn gathering of the Second Vatican Council, were forbidden to discuss the question of birth control because a papal commission had been commissioned to study the question in depth. This commission voted 68 to 4 in favour of justifying artificial contraception, admitting that it could not be declared sinful.
It is also a fact that 15 cardinals and bishops had been added to that commission, and that this group, having studied all the evidence and the commission's discussions, took a vote which gave the following result: nine voted that contraception was not intrinsically evil; three abstained (including the Irish bishop Morris); and only the three Vatican cardinals voted against, preferring "no change". Cardinal Wojtyla, although an official member of the commission, never attended a single debate.
The minority four (all clerics) admitted that they could not prove their position, but warned Pope Paul VI that if change were allowed there would be a major schism in the Church. It was this fear that drove the Pope to write the document.
One of the four, Jesuit John Ford, declared that "if we could bring forward arguments which were clear and cogent and based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our Commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church".
Dr O'Reilly claims that "there are no such things as neutral facts and no such thing as pure reason", but insists that "it is a question of sublime realities which can sometimes be experienced as hard teachings that are the more intelligible and liveable the closer one approaches life at the heart of the Church".
It is difficult to discover what kind of "sound philosophy" he is relying on for such a sweeping statement. - Yours, etc,
Fr SEÁN FAGAN SM,
Lower Leeson Street,
Dublin 2.
Madam, - When questions of conscience arise, I like to get my inspiration from that great 17th-century doctor of the church Cardinal Bellarmine. He wrote as follows: "The Pope is the supreme judge in deciding disputed questions of faith and morals. If the Pope were to err by imposing sins and forbidding virtues, the Church would still have to consider sins as good and virtues as vices, or else she would sin against conscience." - Yours, etc,
TOM BRADY,
Ballymackeogh,
Newport,
Co Tipperary.