John Cuthbert Ford, S.J.: Moral Theologian at the End of the Manualist Era (review)

This work is a significant contribution to the history of moral theology. The author has accessed the writings of his chosen subject and has examined them judiciously. Eric Marcelo Genilo provides an account of one important figure who was representative of a style of moral theology that was widely accepted as standard until relatively recent times. John Cuthbert Ford (1902–89) emerges as both an interesting individual and as typical of many moralists of his era, who were unwavering in defending “objective” moral norms and the authority of the Magisterium and yet, in dealing with individual problems on the “pastoral” level, showed a deep understanding of human limitations and the complexity of personal situations. Younger students who read the manuals of this past era are often not aware of this compassionate and benign element that was characteristic of many, if not all, of the practitioners of moral theology in the past. This practice, of course, was conducted for the most part in the private encounters between pastor and penitent in the confessional, but shows through in Ford’s treatment of some particular cases.

From the perspective both of the history of moral theology and of the study of moral methodology there are three issues that are of particular interest and that are well treated by the author. The first is Ford’s condemnation of obliteration bombing in World War II and the use of nuclear weapons in the postwar era. His articles on these topics were courageous and an important illustration of the strengths of the older moral theology. Ford also supported conscientious objection to military service by Catholics, long before this appeared in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The second is the issue of contraception. The author provides a well-documented account of Ford’s significant role in the debates on the matter and in the eventual production of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. Ford’s main concern seems to have been that any change of doctrine on this issue would amount to an admission that the Catholic Church had been wrong in refusing to accept contraception, while the Anglican and other churches had been right in allowing it. This, he believed, would imply that the Holy Spirit had guided the Protestants and not the Catholic Magisterium. Further, he argued that if the Church had been mistaken in teaching that contraception was wrong for so long, this would mean that it had led countless souls into formal sin. The third issue is what was called at the time “medical ethics.” Worthy of note here is Ford’s insistence on the spiritual welfare of the patient as the paramount concern, an aspect that is sometimes neglected in contemporary discussions, where the “objective” good of life as such is assumed to be determinative.

The author indicates the limitations of Ford’s work, especially his inability to accept development of moral doctrine. However, Genilo’s work raises questions about the kind of moral theological methodology that, it is implied, has gained normative status in the moral theological tradition at present. It is all very well to accept the development of doctrine in the moral tradition, but until an adequate theory of tradition exists, there are insufficient criteria for discerning authentic development. There is need for more historical research and for a theory with which to interpret it. However, this book should be required reading for any course in the history of moral theology.