Morals

"There seems now to be a group in the church itself which holds that the church may 'consider with open mind' sanctioning fornication among our young people with the use of birth control to guard against the coming of children. This is, in plain words, what the high-sounding phrase 'companionate marriage' means, and yet this proposal was mentioned as one to which consideration should be given at the recent church conference in San Francisco [Protestant Episcopal Church Congress] and its consideration is being commended by not a few professors in our universities. . . ."

This was but part of the declaration that Bishop William T. Manning made just before he sailed for England last week to preach on July 3 at the 1,300th anniversary of York Minster. The bishop of the Protestant Episcopal diocese of New York, the overseer of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, went on:

"And I see that a prominent preacher in this city [Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick] if he is correctly reported, preaching to a body of [Smith College] students, scoffed at the idea of 'trying to send a new generation into the world with a definite code of "right and wrong" ' and told those young people that the old ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' have been dropped and that the criterion of behavior is simply what we happen to regard as 'beautiful' and 'ugly'-- which means, I suppose, that there is no longer any law of God which is binding upon us and that our only standard is our own taste of preference. If this is true, if there is no law of God which must be obeyed we need not wonder if our young people adopt 'companionate marriage' or any other suggestion. Judge Lindsey's advocacy of 'unmarried unions' [TIME, Jan. 24, Feb. 28] is publicly commended by college professors, writers and other well-known people, among some ministers of religion. . . .

"It is time for us to say that the advocacy of 'unmarried unions' and 'sex experiments' is not only shameful but damnable--a sin against God, and an affront to all right-minded people, both young and old. And it is time for us to see to it that we know what is being taught to our children in our churches and in our universities. . . ."

All this scolding Bishop Manning based upon hasty, sensationalized newspaper accounts of two addresses by clerics. Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick of the Park Avenue Baptist Church, Manhattan, last week made one of these addresses to students at the 49th commencement of Smith College at Northampton, Mass. Rector Henry Lewis of St. Andrew's Church, Ann Arbor, Mich, (site of the University of Michigan) made the other before the Protestant Episcopal Church Congress at San Francisco a fortnight ago. Each man made earnest plea for the revaluing of moral (ethical) standards, and in each case newspapers "played up" their comments on sex standards.

Rector Henry Lewis had said: "The introduction of science is the outstanding fact of our time, and in morals science has created an entirely new moral situation. For when you have introduced contraceptions you have changed your moral situation. You have done away with that old, but very effective weapon which has deterred many a person from going beyond the accepted moral code--fear of consequences. That fear no longer rests in the breast of any scientifically educated man or woman, and along with the passing of that fear is also going a vast amount of ignorance and misinformation upon the whole sexual relationship.

"The results are only partially manifest. To many young people what used to be considered lapses from the moral code, are now considered to be acts which are as natural as eating and drinking. Indeed, youth often decides on the basis of expediency or worthwhileness, whether sexual intercourse should be indulged in, never thinking of any after effects, because they believe there will be none. They see no harm in it--science will protect them; and science generally does. . . . Whatever we may think of such conduct, the thing for us to notice is that it does exist, and that largely because of scientific knowledge many people are finding reasonable justification for doing things they never would have thought of a generation ago. . . .

"In view of that attitude and in the light of the existing moral facts as we have noted them what should be the message of the church?

"First, it should be a message which frankly acknowledges that it is impossible to try one age by the moral standards of another.... Standards are always modified and adapted to what at the moment are regarded as the object most beneficial to the individual or the social organization. . . .

"Secondly, the Church should cooperate with the findings of modern science, and urge the use of scientific discoveries which tend to the upward development of the race. If, for instance, in the light of modern knowledge, the upward development of humanity seems to point to a greater emphasis upon family life, then the Church should urge the latter to be maintained at all hazards. But if upward development seems to lie in any other direction, then to maintain the solidity of the family against it, is not being an intelligent guide. I am not saying which way science seems to point, I am merely raising the question to show that whatever the Church urges, it should attempt to know in which direction is the greatest upward development. Or again, if to sanctify unmarried unions would do away, as some urge it would, with promiscuity and the double standard, and better protect the children of legal marriages, then to keep on fussing with rules about divorce, and the idea that all marriages are made in heaven is utter folly. . . . Such sanctification all of us are probably not willing to concede. But there are some scientific discoveries which the Church should concede and urge. One of them is sterilization of the mentally defective. Another is the intelligent use of birth control, at least in families where the economic situation is poor.

"Thirdly, most important of all, the Church's message should be one of ideals rather than one of legislation. . . . Let us frankly acknowledge that the many moral lessons drawn from Old Testament Sunday School leaflets, the reading of the Ten Commandments in Church, Elmer Gantry vice crusades, or the Pope issuing edicts on the dress of women, are about as effective weapons in deterring people from immoral acts as an Indian bow and arrow would be in piercing the side of an iron-clad battleship. It is not the business of the Church to legislate in morals. . . . The Church's business is to set forward great principles, and not to lay down minute moral directions.

"In conclusion let me sound an optimistic note. My contact with the coming generation makes me proud of them. They are in love with life. They are keenly interested in their fellow beings. They seek causes rather than fundamentals. They freely discuss sex morality. They try experiments, often to the horror of their parents--but here is the chief point, 'they live by what they think is right,' not by code. And the thing which is encouraging is that more and more a similar attitude may be seen in the Church. It is getting away from precept and code, from 'the letter which killeth to the spirit which giveth life.' It is recognizing that the only way to come at the truth of these matters is through free discussion of them. It, too, is experimenting. . . ."

Dr. Fosdick had said: "There is plenty that is rotten and hypocritical in the old codes concerning love and the relationship of the sexes. Surely they can be changed and the simple standard can be substituted. Whatever debases personality is wrong and ugly; whatever elevates personality is right and beautiful.

"Finally, the standard of good taste is not a negative thing, merely keeping us from wrong. It is a creative thing. That is why your generation is so fine, so much cleaner, healthier, more promising than my generation. For when a generation discovers that the old codes cannot be used and sets up for themselves high standards of their own they have much firmer ground on which to proceed."