The Henson Journals

[183]

Thursday, July 31st, 1930.

The morning was occupied with the debate on the Report of the Moral Witness Committee. The Bishop of Exeter led off with a passionate diatribe against contraceptives, which he clearly placed in the same moral category as abortion and infanticide. He was loudly cheered. I followed with a speech which I had prepared rather carefully. It was designed as a reply to the speech of the Bishop of St Alban's.

"The Bishop wd have us affirm the inexorable attitude of Rome, but he cannot – he would not if he could, for he is an honest man – clothe us with the casuistic elasticity of which Rome reconciles as unyielding theory to an all–accommodating practice."

I insisted on simplifying the question thus:–

Can this new fact – the existence of healthful & easy methods of preventing conception – be brought within the practical system of Christian morality?

I took occasion to comment on the hackneyed diction, "Hard cases make bad law" [184] which had been used several times by the opposition bishops.

Do 'hard cases' make 'bad law'?

Yes: if the hard cases are few, and incapable of being brought under the general laws.

No: if they are so numerous that the law becomes generally inoperative. This is roughly the present situation.

Are we going to take up a non–possumus attitude, and leave the problem to find solution in the unauthorized and unguided action of individuals? Or are we going to shoulder our own teaching responsibility, & indicate the conditions of rightful use?

Personally, I cannot doubt in which direction the way of our duty must be found, &, therefore, I propose (always reserving my right to seek amendments in detail) to support the Resolutions before us.

My speech certainly made a great impression, [185] and many bishops thanked me for it. I was followed by another dervish, Walter Carey, Bishop of Bloemfontein, who made another impassioned appeal, which plainly moved the Conference. The applause was very laud, but I was assured that it expressed rather admiration for the orator than agreement with his contention, and that, if a vote had been take, the Report wd have been accepted. Headlam asked that the Report might be referred back for re–casting: and this was agreed to. We then completed the section dealing with Race problems. After lunch, the Report on Unity was introduced by speeches from Temple and Headlam, of which the first was admirable & the last characteristic. After tea the members of the Unity Committee were photographed. The Bishop of Ripon (Burroughs) dined with us, & went with us to the reception by the American Bishops. We got home about 11 p.m.

---