DeoOmnisGloria.com

This morning I invite you to come back with me to an incident that took place in August of 1967. I was spending a week of my vacation with five other Baltimore priests in Ocean City, MD. One balmy afternoon that week, while the six of us were relaxing on the beach—playing cards, reading, or dozing—Fr. Joe turned the mood quite serious with the remark, “Hey guys, won’t it be great when Pope Paul comes out with his decision allowing birth control?”

Playing Devil’s Advocate, Fr. Jack Hooper, retorted, “But what if he doesn’t?”
—“Come on, Jack, he has to. The Majority Report from his Birth Control Commission gave compelling reasons why it’s time for the Church to change her position.”
—“I’m well aware of that Report. But still, what if he doesn’t?”
—“Well, Jack, most Catholic theologians are in agreement with the Majority Opinion.”
—“Yes, I’m aware of that too. But still, what if he doesn’t?”
Somewhat exasperated, Fr. Joe countered with:
—“Look, man, use your head! The latest polls tell us that over 50% of Catholics are already using some form of birth control.”
—“I’ve heard of those polls, and I suspect that they’re pretty accurate.
But still, what if he doesn’t?”

At this point—before Fr. Joe had a chance to respond—I jumped in:
—"Well, Joe, if he does, my Roman collar comes off, and I'm heading to a quiet little hermitage in Western Maryland. I'm going to tell the Lord, “OK, Jesus, from now on it’s just you and me. Because the Church I thought you had founded to teach the truth in your name until the end of time has let us down. She has led us---into error.”
—“Hey Vic, don’t let that hot Latin blood get the better of you.
You're going to be eating those words before too long.”
—“No, I won’t, Joe. If the Holy Father changes this teaching, I’m leaving. But I’m certain that I won’t have to leave, because he can't change it. Pope Paul could issue a document tomorrow, making celibacy optional, if he wanted to. That’s Church discipline--- in the same league as fish on Friday or Latin in the Mass. But he can no more allow contraception than he can permit abortion or homosexual activity. Frankly, I’m a little puzzled by the long delay in his decision---This is one Church teaching that's non-negotiable.”

The following summer, Pope Paul issued his landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which he reiterated the Church’s traditional ban against contraception. I can still recall my reaction as I read the various newspaper accounts of the angry storm of dissent that greeted his encyclical. One article, in particular, caused me great concern. It reported how 87 Catholic theologians had signed a document dissenting from Paul Paul’s decision, alleging that the Pope was in error. I was very dismayed when I noticed among the signers, the name of Fr. John Cronin, a professor of Moral Theology at the local seminary. To see his name listed among the dissenters came as a crushing blow to me. For Fr. Cronin had been instrumental in my own spiritual formation through a moving retreat he had given while I was a seminarian. I immediately dashed off a letter to him, which initiated a written debate between the two of us.

I would like to highlight two items from that debate. First, I asked Fr. Cronin what he meant to accomplish by his statement of dissent: "After years of patiently awaiting the Pope’s decision, why did you and your fellow theologians take it on yourselves to fan the fires of confusion all over again?"

He responded: “Why did I do it? I suppose primarily because of what would happen if the other side is not presented. Seminarians here face a real identity crisis. If the theologians’ side had not been presented, our already critical vocations’ crisis would turn into an utter rout. Younger priests are most uneasy. Had we kept silent, then hundreds, perhaps thousands would have voted with their feet. The laity is upset. Silence would have driven them by the thousands from the Church.”

The second point I’d like to highlight from my correspondence with Fr. Cronin is that the dissenters want to refashion the Church as a democracy. Their desire is to demolish the Church as the Bride of Christ—our Bridegroom—who speaks to us through a living, binding Magisterium.

I quote from one of my letters:

“The greatest point of confusion caused by your dissenting ("non-serviam") statement, Fr. Cronin, lies in the implication that the Church, as established by the Lord Jesus, can better function in our modern world if reorganized along democratic lines. Accordingly, in order to support your present position, you would have to rewrite certain passages of Scripture as follows:

1. When the Lord’s followers voted with their feet in John 6, objecting, ‘This is an intolerable teaching. Who can accept it?', instead of asking the Twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’, you would have Jesus tell them: ‘Call them back. I’ll restate my teaching to conform to their preconceived notions of what they feel it should be.’
2. Jesus’ words to Peter, ‘Your name is Rock and on this rock I will build my Church,” (Mt 16:18) will now have to read, ‘Your name is Theology, and on whatever the latest theological trend happens to be, I will build my Church.’
3. Jesus’ commission to his apostles to teach the nations ‘to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you.’ (Mt 28:20) must now read: ‘Teach them to observe whatever the majority opinion happens to be at the time.’”

Towards the end of one of his letters, Fr. Cronin wrote: “I could hardly close without a scripture quotation, since you amassed so many against me. ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ Vic, wait and see a year from now if the dissent now did not save the Church from a sea of troubles.” Well, many years have passed since we concluded our correspondence, and it’s safe to say that the dissent was the cause—not the preventative—of a sea of troubles.