about the eating of meats in I Corinthians with this statement: "Be without offence to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God: As I also in all things please all men, not seeking what is profitable to myself, but to many, that they may be saved. (I Cor. 10:32-33-italics mine.)

I shall now say a word about some of the physical effects of drinking. Addiction is a "self-perpetuating dependence on a drug or a chemical." Alcohol is a depressive narcotic. While liquor was meant to be a bonum utile and a bonum delectabile, still there is danger of "the cure being worse than the disease”—even if the drinking is only "moderately immoderate."

If any priests would be willing to join the Total Abstinence League, they should be informed that a lifelong pledge is not necessary. The members may take the pledge for their span of life—or for the term of their membership in the League. Thus, the duration of the pledge is left to the option of the individual. Perhaps it would be better for a man to take it for one or two years on a trial basis, and then, take it for life or renew it every year as long as he lives. I would ask those interested to write to me.

If a priest chooses to continue to practice temperance and moderation rather than to become a total abstainer, that is his privilege, as I said, and no one is going to think the less of him for doing so. Still I would ask of him one favor-not to oppose or obstruct the Total Abstinence Movement. And if anyone would try to organize a unit of the C.T.A.U. in his parish, especially among the youth, I would ask him to give his consent, and also his co-operation to the promoter. I do feel that the re-creation of the old-time Temperance Cadets would help to curb the drinking fad among teenagers and youth.

One last word. I have reason to believe that there are not a few priests who are non-drinkers. I would extend a special invitation to these to join the Total Abstinence League. "In union there is strength": first, for themselves, and then, for the fight against excess and abuse in the matter of alcoholic beverages. The public pays little attention to a solitary voice crying in the wilderness. But a concerted, articulate effort will make people sit up and take notice. The Church in this country has been waging war for thirty years against bad movies, stage productions, and reading matter.

I submit that a vigorous and articulate campaign against excess and abuse in drinking would be in order at this time.

St. Mary's Seminary

Roland Park

Baltimore, Maryland

MILES M. MCANDREW, S.S.

Answers to Questions

FREEDOM OF WORSHIP

Question: Did not Pope John XXIII state in the Encyclical Pacem in terris that even a person who is in honest error regarding his religious beliefs—that is, one who sincerely believes some non-Catholic religion to be true-has a real right to profess and to practice that religion? For the Pope asserted that everyone has the right to practice religion according to the dictates of an upright conscience; and surely one who follows a conscience which he sincerely believes to be true is acting according to the dictates of an upright conscience.

Answer: This question revolves about the disputed problem whether or not one who sincerely believes a religion which is objectively false to be true has a real right to profess and to practice it. In recent times some have upheld the affirmative, and would like to see this opinion approved by the Second Vatican Council. However, the traditional view has been that an erroneous conscience (even when inculpably erroneous) gives no real right to profess or to practice a religion that is objectively false. Such a conscience can give only a subjective right (or a jus existimatum). As our correspondent points out, the English translation of Pacem in terris seems to support the former view, since it says that a person may follow the dictates of an upright conscience in his choice of religion, and one can be said to follow an upright conscience even when, through inculpable ignorance, he professes an objectively false religion. However, further investigation of the Encyclical clearly indicates that the English translation does not render correctly the Latin phraseology. In the Latin version we read that a person enjoys the right to practice religion according to the right norm of his conscience (ad rectam suae conscientiae normam). This is very different from saying that he is free to choose his religion according to his upright conscience. The word right, applied to conscience, may mean either true or in accord with one's honest conscience (even though inculpably erroneous). In other words,

the Encyclical uses a word that can be interpreted according to either of the views described above. Evidently, Pope John XXIII intended to leave unanswered the question whether a person has a real right to embrace in good faith a false religion, or has a real right to accept only the religion that is objectively true.

RIGHTS OF A STERILIZED MAN

Question: A married man had himself sterilized by the operation of double vasectomy, knowing that he thereby was sinning gravely. Is he allowed to have intercourse with his wife subsequently?

Answer: The first question involved in this problem is whether double vasectomy renders a man merely sterile or also impotent. This question has been much discussed among theologians and canonists, and although the matter is still uncertain, it seems that the opinion is solidly probable that only sterility, not impotence, follows from this operation. Consequently, per se a vasectomized man is permitted to marry and to make use of conjugal rights. The second question is whether per accidens a married man who has sinfully had himself sterilized by such an operation is forbidden to use his rights. The answer is negative. The fact that he brought about the situation by a sinful act does not deprive him of his conjugal rights, just as the fact that a man who acquired an inheritance by murdering his father does not prevent him from lawfully using the inheritance. It could be added that an unmarried man who has had himself sinfully vasectomized is not thereby prevented from contracting a valid marriage, though in justice he must inform his prospective bride of his condition in order to marry licitly. The third question is whether a man who has submitted to this operation sinfully is bound to have another operation in order to remedy the sterility. The answer is that he is obliged to have such an operation if there is a good chance that he can have it done successfully without grave inconvenience. In other words, if he can find a doctor who will assure him of good hope of success and will not charge a large amount, the man must submit to the operation. The fact is, however, that most doctors seem to feel that there is little or no hope of success when the attempt is made to restore to the sex organs the ability to produce offspring.

WHO SHOULD GET THE OFFERING?

Question: Nowadays, when so many families go to the country or the beach for a summer vacation-sometimes for even two months—a problem arises as to which pastor should receive their contributions while they are on vacation, the pastor of their home parish or the pastor of the vacation parish. There appears to be a notable disagreement among pastors on this point, depending on whether they have an urban parish or a country or beach parish. The home pastor sometimes insists that his people continue their regular offerings while they are on vacation, sending him their contributions every week. And the vacation pastor tells the same people that he expects them to give generously to the needs of his parish, adding that they ought to help toward the upkeep of the school and the heating of the church in winter. What is to be said of this problem?

Answer: Whatever my answer may be to this thorny problem, I fear I shall lose some friends who are pastors, whether in the city or in summer resorts. But I shall try to be objective, which means I shall answer with a distinction. In favor of the home pastor's frevent exhortation, I would say that his people are his parishioners all the year, so that he has per se the right to receive their offerings during the entire twelve months. Besides, if the parish has a parochial school, the pastor has a right to receive support for it throughout the entire year, because the expenses for the school are distributed among the parishioners on a twelvemonth basis, even though the school is closed during the summer. Hence, I believe that the vacationists should give generously to their parish of residence during the vacation, though they are not bound to give as much as they would if they stayed home all summer. They certainly are obliged to contribute to the parish in which they spend their vacation. The pastor provides them with spiritual service during the summer. He gives them Sunday Masses (perhaps with the extra financial burden of calling in several extra priests), he is available to give them the sacraments, answers sickcalls, etc. Hence, the vacationing Catholics should not be content with giving a mere token contribution, but should give very generously in the course of the summer. I believe they should, in charity, give the pastor of the vacation church something for the