meeting on September 4, 1958, in New York State, Father Gruenthaner was awarded a citation by Saint Bonaventure University in connection with its centennial. But he had already fallen a prey to Parkinson's disease, and its ravages of his powerful frame and sparkling zest for life were pitiful to those who knew his prime. Meeting him in November 1958 for the first time since we sat in Monsignor Fenton's room in Washington gave me a shocking insight into the scholastic adage, "the higher the degree of vitality of an organism, the more awful is its decay." In 1959, he retired from teaching at the age of seventy-one. Father Gerald Van Ackeren, Dean of the Saint Marys theologate and editor of Theology Digest, set about producing a Festschrift to be presented to Emeritus Professor Gruenthaner on his seventyfifth birthday. At the 1961 meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association it was proposed to the Executive Board that they should sponsor this Festschrift as a special number of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, of which Father Gruenthaner had been the editor of longest tenure to date. It was decided that this was impossible in view of other commitments for special numbers to honor outstanding members. Shortly afterward, Father John McKenzie accepted the editorship of the Festschrift, and selected the active writers on Scripture whom he thought should be invited to contribute. Among those who accepted were Father Roland Murphy, O. Carm., the present Editor of CBQ, and the recent presidents of CBA, Bruce Vawter, C.M., and Raymond E. Brown, S.S. The 1962 CBA meeting unanimously accepted a resolution introduced by Monsignor Rossiter and signed by Executive Secretary Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., expressing appreciation for his services to CBA and CBQ, and for the Festschrift to appear in his honor. Father Gruenthaner suffered several disquieting attacks during 1961 and 1962, but surmounted them encouragingly. When he was taken to Saint Francis Hospital in Topeka in late August of 1962, it was felt that this was merely for his greater comfort and better care in a passing crisis. But the seriousness of his condition gradually became evident. Father Joseph Fisher, his Rector and former Provincial, spent many hours uninterruptedly at his bedside, and eventually Father Ronald Putthoff went in to replace him. He was there when shortly before midnight on Friday, September 14, the end came. It was seventeen days before the awaited seventy-fifth birthday. The funeral was of a unique solemnity. The presence of two hundred surpliced seminarians in the majestic Immaculata Chapel always makes a memorable parting; but in Father Gruenthaner's case for the first time was applied the recent repeal of a four-hundred-year Jesuit prohibition of Solemn High Mass at funerals. He was borne by his colleagues to the Jesuit community plot in the little cemetery on the hillside northeast of Saint Marys. Telegrams of appreciation from The Catholic University of America, and Saint Mary's Indiana and from Father Hartman for the Catholic Biblical Association were received. Father Michael Gruenthaner was my Scripture teacher and colleague. His greatness and his kind heart were monumentally evident to all who worked with him. We recognized the many approaches in which he tried to inspire and guide us, both in class and in private counseling. Most of us in many ways bear the imprint of that guidance. Where we do not, after twenty years it is easy to see that doing things his way would have been best in many areas. Yet in those areas where we resisted and stood on our own feet, he will perhaps now deem-perhaps always has-that we were most faithful to his leadership and best reflected in our feeble vessels his own heroic stature. The life of Saint Jerome, patron of Scripture teachers, was not a blessed vision of peace, but a battleground of turbulent struggle. The life of America's pioneer Jerome was akin. Some of us may wonder, when those two meet in that other Jerusalem, what scheme they will concoct to get things moving a bit! Marquette University ROBERT NORTH, S.J. Answers to Questions THE MORALITY OF CHIROPRACTIC Question: Has the Church any official teaching as to the morality of chiropractic? I have never seen this question discussed in medico-moral manuals. Answer: As far as I know, the Church has never made any official statement about the morality of chiropractic. Even Pope Pius XII, who spoke on so many subjects, particularly on those connected with the art of healing, had nothing to say on chiropractic. The same is true of the theologians. I found nothing about it in the medico-moral books I consulted. I believe the reason is that this method of healing, the manipulation of the joints of the body, seems to offer no problem from the moral aspect, at least as far as its specific methods are concerned. Of course, the general principles of morality dictate that the chiropractor must possess sufficient knowledge and skill to give his treatments without any danger of injuring the patients and also be sincerely convinced that his procedures will give at least probable hope of helping each individual whom he treats. Moreover, any civil laws pertinent to chiropractic, such as the obligation to obtain a license, must be observed. AN UNUSUAL STATEMENT ABOUT CONTRACEPTION Question: The Catholic papers recently carried a statement made by a Dutch bishop which seemed to give the impression that some married couples are unable to avoid the sin of contraception and that the Church requires of them nothing more than the intention of observing God's law at some future time. Will you please comment on this statement? Answer: The correspondent is evidently referring to remarks made by Bishop William Bekkers, of 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, in a television program at Hilversum, on March 21. The bishop expressed sympathy with those couples who find it necessary to limit the size of their family, especially when the rhythm method cannot be effectively employed. To this extent all theologians would be in agreement with the bishop. Indeed, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii Pope Pius XI expressed sympathy with such couples. But other statements of Bishop Bekkers offer some difficulty. The impression that his remarks give is that some couples are unable to abstain from contraception, and that the Church is satisfied as long as such persons look forward to living up to God's law in the future. He said: "The Church knows that married couples, in well-intentioned care for the family and for each other, sometimes take steps that the Church cannot consider the right steps. But the Church also knows that what one person can reach cannot always be reached by others. And then the Church wants to give room for a gradual, perhaps slow and imperfect growing, such as is possible in all other areas of life; for instance, in charity, honesty and piety. The Church holds that those who keep on trying, although they have not yet reached the highest level, are on the right path" (N.C.W.C. News Service, April 1, 1963). Surely, if these words be taken literally, they mean that some couples are unable to avoid the sin of contraception, despite the statements of Popes to the effect that grace will be given to those who are tempted sufficient to help them to avoid sin. And it should be noted that contraception is not a sin of passion. It would be interesting to know if the bishop believes that Catholics such as he described as not willing to give up contraception (but with a velleity to improve) can be admitted to the sacraments. A NEW IDEA IN CATECHETICS Question: In a new work on catechetics, written by a nun, it is stated that the distinction between moral and venial sin should not be taught to children in the primary grades. The reason alleged is that children in this age bracket are not psychologically capable of committing a (formal) mortal sin, even though they are capable of memorizing the conditions necessary for a mortal sin. The author quotes Fr. Jungman, S.J., to the effect that "it must be assumed that, on account of insufficient insight, grave sins are, as a rule, not possible before the tenth or eleventh year." What is to be said about this opinion? Answer: There are two questions involved in this problem: (1) At what age does a child usually become capable of committing a formal mortal sin? (2) Should children in the primary grades of school be instructed in the difference between mortal and venial sin? The answer to the first question offered by the author of the catechetical work is evidently based on the distinction between conceptual and evaluative cognition-a soundly established distinction. It can safely be asserted that there are some persons who are so mentally immature or retarded (or in individual instances so emotionally affected) that they do not grasp or realize the malice of mortal sin sufficiently to be capable of committing a subjectively grave sin, even though they have an intellectual perception of the serious wrong they are doing. Such persons are said to have a conceptual cognition of mortal sin but not an evaluative cognition. I explained this distinction in The American Ecclesiastical Review for December, 1962, and applied it to the case of mentally retarded persons in the issue of May, 1963. I believe it can also be applied to normal children in the sense that some of them have not sufficient knowledge at the age of seven to be guilty of a formal mortal sin. But to make a sweeping statement that practically all normal children do not require the evaluative cognition of mortal sin until they are ten or eleven years of age is entirely without foundation. On the contrary, the decree of Pope St. Pius X on the age for first communion (DB, 2137-44), the Code of Canon Law (Can. 859, § 1) and the general consensus of theological opinion determine the age of reason as about seven-and by the age of reason it has been customary to interpret it as that age at which the child is able to grasp the malice of mortal sin, not only intellectually, but also psychologically and emotionally. The second question, whether or not the distinction between mortal and venial sin should be deferred in the course of catechetical instruction until the child is about ten years of age, must be emphatically answered in the negative. For even if a child has not as yet sufficient evaluative cognition to be capable of formal mortal sin, he can and should have a conceptual knowledge of the distinction between grave and light sin. The author of the catechetical work in question apparently failed to consider this, for she gives as the only alternative to evaluative cognition the mere memoriz |