...as does Mr King

The Editor of New Zealand Tablet, making similar remarks to those published in Zealandia editorial, contends that the statement in question "was discredited as unreliable" because Cardinal Doepfner himself did not make it. He further claims that "the irresponsibility lies with your-ielves (Salient) for not having made elementary enquiries.

In fact it is common practice for bishops to issue directives that they themselves did not actually write (administration does not always leave them time to be experts in all areas of theology), but which they allow to be printed under their name.

The statement referred to in the editorial was prepared by theologians in Cardinal Doepfner's diocese in Munich in 1964. and issued with his 'imprimatur" of approval to the priests of the diocese. (of London Tablet April 16. 1966).

Contrary to the assumption made by the editon of the New Zealand Tablet widespread preliminary enquiries were made about the state ments: to the editor of Zealandia, to the VUW Catholic chaplain, and to a Wellington priest with a doctorate in theology.

If the statement has been "discredited" because it did not actually come from Cardinal Doepfner's pen, one would expect him to disclaim it. But in fact he has reaffirmed the principles contained in the statement, putting them in their context. In an article referred to by the editor of New Zealand Tablet, supposedly "discrediting" the statement. Cardinal Doepfner wrote:

"With regard to the statement on marriage problems reported by the Tablet (London) it is a question of pastoral guidelines issued by my pastoral office.

"What is concerned is merely the subjective judgments of actions of married people who are honourably trying to live according to God's law. but who also find themselves in difficulties of conscience on account of the concrete circumstances of their life." Tablet, April 30, 1966.

This agrees with Salient's editorial which stated:

"While not stating the universal application of birth control as a general principle, this statement can be regarded as a plea for flexibility in the application of moral teaching."

The points I would make, therefore, are these:

• The statement was made.

• It originated from a responsible party.

• It was issued under Cardinal Doepfner's name.

• He has reaffirmed its principles this year.

I therefore stand by the Salient editorial, believing that the statement should have been printed, as it was in England and Australia, as an expression of opinion by a responsible party.

M. King.

Salient Religious Editor