Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement? A Search for the Truth by Monsignor Vincent Foy

Preface
Many errors circulate intimating that the Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Bishops was approved by Pope Paul VI. In a recent work “Faith and Freedom, The Life and Times of Bill Ryan, S.J.” (Bob Chodos and Jamie Swift, Novalis, 2002) we read that the Canadian bishops at Winnipeg reaffirmed the encyclical’s teaching and that Pope Paul VI expressed his approval of the Winnipeg Statement “in communications with several Canadian bishops” (p.90). Both these statements are erroneous. The present booklet was published by the Life Ethics Information Centre in 1997. It attempted to show that Pope Paul VI did not approve the Winnipeg Statement.

Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement? A Search for the Truth. by Msgr. Vincent Foy

Teilhard de Chardin: Arch Heretic

Pope Pius XII called the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin “a cesspool of errors.” The Church’s condemnation of his writings remains in force.

Unfortunately, in The Catholic Register of Toronto for Feb. 3, 2012, there is a front full-page picture of de Chardin with the inscription “Studying the origins of the universe – The brilliance and spirituality of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin brought to life on stage.” On page ten is an article by Michael Swan with a favorable review of a play “The De Chardin Project” by actor and writer Adam Seybold, who belongs to “a liberal Protestant Church.” We are misinformed that de Chardin was a brilliant thinker who articulated the first positive Christian response to evolutionary theory. We are further told that today his thoughts on cosmology and evolution form that basis of contemporary [so-called] “Catholic” theologies of the environment.

The Life and Erroneous Writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

This is a much-condensed treatment of his life and writings:

1. He was born in south central France on May 1, 1881.
2. He was educated at the Jesuit College at Mongre and joined the Society of Jesus in 1899.
3. He continued philosophy and seminary education from 1901-05. This was followed by a three-year sojourn to Cairo, Egypt, where he taught physics and chemistry at a Jesuit school and developed his interest in paleontology. He went to England in 1908, studied theology and was ordained in 1911.
4. He returned to Paris and studied paleontology and took a doctorate in 1922.
5. For a short period he taught at the Catholic Institute in Paris but his unorthodox views, especially his rejection of Original Sin, led to his expulsion. He was exiled to China in 1923.
6. In 1926, his Superior forbade him to teach.
7. In 1933, the Holy See in Rome ordered him to give up his subsequent post in Paris.
8. In 1939, the Holy See banned his work “L’nergie Humaine.”
9. In 1941, de Chardin submitted to Rome “Le Phnomne Humain.” Its publication was forbidden.
10. In 1947, Rome also forbade him to write or teach on philosophical subjects.
11. In 1948, he was called to Rome and persisted in trying to get permission to publish “Le Phnomne Humain.” The Holy See renewed its’ prohibition of this work and forbade him to teach at the College de France.
12. In 1949, permission to publish “Le Groupe Zoologique” was also refused.
13. In 1955, his Superiors forbade de Chardin to attend the International Congress on Paleontology. That same year, de Chardin died in New York on Easter Sunday.
14. On June 30, 1962, a Monitum was given at Rome by the Holy Office: “It is sufficiently clear that the above mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine. For this reason, the most eminent and most reverend Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as Superiors of Religious Institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.”
15. In 1963, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, in the name of Pope Paul VI, ordered that booksellers in Rome withdraw from circulation the works of de Chardin together with those books which favour his erroneous doctrines.
16. In 1967, in a reply to a question raised by the Apostolic Delegate to the United States concerning the previous Monitum condemning the works of de Chardin, the Holy See reiterated: “I wish to assure you that the Monitum issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is still in effect. At no time has a distinction been made with regard to any one of his writings.”
17. On July 20, 1981, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office printed a Statement in L’Osservatore Romano reiterating the warning of the 1962 banning of the writings of Teilhard “against rumours that it no longer applied.”

Church Teaching Vs. the Errors of Teilhard de Chardin

Teilhard’s writings are full of heretical untruths condemned by the Church. Besides denying the Church’s infallible Doctrine of Original Sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church 385-421, 1440,1871-72), he did not believe in the supernatural, angels, the devil or hell. De Chardin was also a pantheist, who claimed that everything is God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 285 states: “Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism).” In addition, Teilhard was a monist, a collectivist, a secularist, founder of a new religion and a religious evolutionist. (cf. “The Truth About Teilhard”, by Msgr. Leo S. Schumacher).

As a religious evolutionist, Teilhard erroneously claimed that everything is “becoming” and evolving and that God is evolving. Patrick Redmond of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars is the author of the book “From Adam and Eve to the Present” (Ave Maria Press, 2012). In it he notes, that DNA can be scientifically traced back to our first parents, one man and one woman, which confirms Church doctrine that human beings were created by God, beginning with Adam and Eve, and they did not evolve from lower animals.

In an article published in the Journal of the Canadian Chapter of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Summer-Fall 2010, Redmond tells us:

“The Church has had a long tradition of confirming that God created all from nothing, and we note here Lateran IV (1215), Vatican I (1859) and Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis. This last document, issued in 1950, states: discussion about the possibility of evolution of man from pre-existing matter is permitted. However this discussion was to be restricted and limited only to those experts in the human sciences and sacred theology and these same experts were specifically forbidden to teach as an established fact that man’s body evolved from a lower animal.”

Redmond continues: “Some Catholics dissent from this position. Teilhard de Chardin, was a notable dissident, a very influential theologian and heretic of the 20th century. Teilhard, while still a Jesuit student, became a member of the exclusive Count Begouen circle at Toulouse, the object of which was to propagate Darwin’s theory in France and to introduce it into the Catholic seminaries of Europe. He became one of the most active propagandists for the evolutionists.”

“Indeed, he became involved in at least two frauds claiming man evolved from a lower animal form of life. One was the Piltdown Man, used for 40 years to claim evolution, until proven to be deceptively stained human teeth. A second was the Peking Man, discovered while he worked at Peking Union Medical College funded by the Rockefeller Institute. Peking Man was shown eventually to be a monkey.”

While Catholics are free to believe in a theory of maxi-evolution, it is not proven and only a theory. There remains no proof of even one species evolving into another species. There is much proof of mini-evolution or changes within species.

Canada and the Spread of de Chardin’s New Religion

The errors of de Chardin have been widely spread in Canada by articles, lectures and in retreats, produced by individuals from Canada, the US and other places. For example, on Jan. 16, 2012, http://www.catholic.org advertised a “Free – Retreat with Teilhard de Chardin by Fr. Donald Georgen, O.P., Ph.D” in three CDs, produced by “Now Your Know Media”. We read “Through 6 audio conferences Fr. Goergen guides you through the mysticism of Teilhard, one of the greatest theological minds of the 20th century.”

Perhaps the most damaging vehicle of the errors of de Chardin has been the Canadian Catechism. The first edition of this was called “Viens au Pre,” disseminated in Quebec. Incidentally, 70 parishes have closed in Montreal recently so we can see the fruits of this and the contraceptive mentality. The catechists who composed this catechism were trained in a Catechetical School in Europe in which all the teachers were Jesuit followers of Teilhard de Chardin. This catechism was translated into English as “Come to the Father” and later named “Born of the Spirit”.

This catechism downplays Original Sin and the supernatural, including the existence of hell and mortal sin. As a result, many thousands of Catholic children have become religious illiterates. A Hamilton Sister of St. Joseph studied catechetics at the Pontifical Catechetical School at Erie, PA. She wrote her doctoral thesis showing the influence of de Chardin on the Canadian Catechism. Unfortunately the School closed and the thesis was lost. The author died and I was able to obtain only a portion of this excellent analysis.

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” (2 Tim 4:3). The errors of de Chardin continue to be propagated by such articles as that in The Catholic Register of Toronto.

A Brief Bibliography on the Errors of Teilhard

Besides the pontifical sources noted above, this is by no means a complete bibliography exposing the heresies in his works, but a representable one:

1. Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, August 12, 1950, http://www.vatican.va

2. “Teilhard, Evolution and the Catholic Church”, reprinted from the Mindszenty Report, April 1977, PO Box 11321, Saint Louis, MO 63105; http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v14n4p22.htm.

3. “Christ Denied”, Fr. Paul Wickens, 1982, Tan Books and Publishers. It contains a detailed record of Ecclesiastical decisions regarding the person and writings of Teilhard de Chardin.

4. “Teilhardism and the New Religion – A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin”, Wolfgang Smith, 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc, PO Box 424, Rockford, IL, 61105.

5. “The Charitable Anathema”, Dietrich von Hildebrand, 1993, Roman Catholic Books, PO Box 255, Harrison, NY, 10528. Chapter XX is entitled “Teilhard de Chardin: Towards a New Religion.” Von Hildebrand exposes how Teilhard was a false prophet.

6. “In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order”, Ian Taylor, professor at the University of Toronto, 2003, TFE Publishing, 5th Ed., Zimmerman, MN. This book analyzes evolution and explains the error of theistic evolution. Available free online at: http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm

7. “Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy”, Wolfgang Smith, 2102, Angelico Press, http://www.angelicopress.com, ISBN: 13: 978-1597311335, Price: $16.95.

Written by Monsignor Vincent Foy and first published in Catholic Insight magazine

Personal Memories of Msgr. Vincent Foy: “The Toronto Archdiocesan Blue Laws”

By Rev. Msgr.Vincent Foy

The Toronto Archdiocesan Blue Laws

As a young priest, ordained in 1939, I had some experience of what it was like to live under the so-called Blue Laws of Toronto Archdiocese. I don’t think the great majority of us considered them a heavy burden. In general I think the morale of the clergy was higher than it is today.

The Blue Laws had their origin in about three incidents, which took place in the spring of 1937. Two priests, one diocesan and one religious, were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. One of these charges involved the death of a pedestrian. Another priest was charged with immoral behaviour with a nurse in a parked car. The anti-Catholic Toronto press carried reports of these events in headlines. When the public was excluded from the trial of the priest charged with immoral behaviour, the headline in the Toronto Evening Telegram was: “Why is priest case held in camera?”

At the time, since we saw no newspapers, news of these sad events filtered only gradually to us seminarians at St. Augustine’s Seminary. We learned that Archbishop McGuigan was away during at least two of these incidents and when he returned he was greatly shaken. First he called a meeting at the Seminary of all curates. I recall that when I was returning to my room after the afternoon recreation I could hear his raised voice coming from the spiritual lecture room, where he was talking to the priests. He could be heard, I think, anywhere in the building. I remember his words: “If you can’t live your commitment to chastity, rip off your collar and get out”.

The following week he called all pastors to the Seminary and lectured them, but in a much more subdued tone.

Following this, on July 6th, 1937, Archbishop McGuigan sent a letter to all priests. It was entitled “Regulations for the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Toronto. The subheading was “Serva Regulam et Regula Servabit Te”. This letter contained the famous or infamous Toronto Blue Laws. Here are the principal parts:

1. All priests were to be in the parish rectory not later than 11P.M.. When a curate foresaw that he would be later for a good reason, he was to inform and obtain permission from the pastor before leaving the rectory. If detained for some unforeseen reason, he must report to the pastor or rector on his return.
2. Social visiting in parish homes was altogether discouraged.
3. No priest may purchase a car without permission of the Archbishop. Permission would be denied when there is no real need or when the priest could not afford to pay for or operate a car without incurring debt.
4. Absolutely, and “sub gravi” it was forbidden to any member of the clergy, Diocesan or Religious or peregrini to:
(a) operate a motor vehicle within eight hours after having drunk any quantity, no matter how small, of any intoxicating liquor, including beer and wine (except the wine actually used during the celebration of the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass).
(b) enter, be in , ride in or operate a motor vehicle in which there is present a member of the female sex, exception made only for the mother of the priest

Both these laws, binding “sub gravi”, carried with them the censure latae sententiae of suspension a divinis et suspensione a jurisdictione, each incurred ipso facto and each reserved to the Ordinary of the Diocese.

5. Drinking with the laity or in the homes of the faithful was altogether prohibited.

It should be added that all seminarians destined to serve in Toronto Archdiocese, upon ordination to the diaconate, were required to take the pledge to abstain from all alcoholic beverages for a period of ten years. I recall that our class took the pledge one by one in the seminary chapel. Under the supervision of Dr. Davis each of us placed his hand on the bible in the sanctuary to make this solemn commitment.

Such was the situation when I was ordained on June 3rd, 1939.

What a great tragedy it would be to be suspended on one’s day of ordination. Yet in the objective order, on my ordination day, I committed an act which merited suspension according to the Blue Laws. It was the custom in Holy Name parish, to which I belonged, for the newly ordained priest to stay at the parish rectory the night before his first Solemn High Mass. Msgr. Cline, the pastor, called the visitor’s room, on the third floor, Patmos. So I had the privilege of sleeping one night in Patmos. I had spent the afternoon and early evening after ordination at home on Fulton Ave. About 8 P.M. my brother Edward drove me to the rectory. It was just after the car stopped that I realised that my little sister. Shirley, then ten years old, was sitting in the back seat. So I was saved from suspension by my inadvertence.

By a letter dated June 20th, 1939, I was appointed to serve as a curate to the Dean of St. Catherine’s. I was sent a copy of the 1937 Regulations, which I still have. I was also reminded that I was to be in the rectory by 11 P.M., and that social visiting was absolutely forbidden. I was also told: “ The spirit of serious reading and study should be fostered, great zeal shown in the work of parish visiting and reclaiming lapsed Catholics, also in any other specific work given you by your Pastor”.

Something of a ridiculous situation arose when I was stationed in St. Catherine’s in the summer of 1939. I was walking back to the Deanery from the General Hospital when Ed Sheehan of St. Mary’s parish stopped to give me a drive. When I opened the front door of the car I saw a baby on the front seat. I said: “ Ed, is this a boy or a girl?”. He told me it was little Mary (I am not sure of the name, but I know that later she became a Sister of St. Joseph). I said, “Many thanks, Ed, but I need the exercise”. I gave no explanation. Msgr. Cline told me he once ordered a little girl out of the rumble seat of a car when he was offered a drive home. She went crying into her house. He was too ashamed to give a reason.

The wording of the Blue Laws was not quite canonical. It forbade driving with a member of the opposite sex instead of person of the opposite sex. This gave rise to a number of humorous comments. Msgr. Cline said that if a queen bee flew into his car he would have to stop it and get out.

Various interpretations were given to the prohibition against driving after consuming an alcoholic beverage. One was that both actions, driving and drinking, had to take place within Toronto Archdiocese. According to some it was licit in driving back from the Niagara Peninsula, then in Toronto Archdiocese, to stop over for a meal and drink in Hamilton and then proceed to Toronto. A very few claimed that the Blue Laws were invalid and a very, very few ignored them, but the old code of canon law stated that a bishop’s doubtful penalty had to be obeyed until the matter was settled by the Holy See.

Only once did I suffer the consequences of violating the Blue Laws. While a curate under Dean Cullinane of St. Catherine’s, I arrived at the Deanery shortly after 11P.M.. I had been over to Niagara Falls, New York, and my driver underestimated the time it would take to get back. The door was locked and barred. After I had alerted him by throwing coins at his window, the senior curate, Fr. Austin Sweeney, kindly came down and let me in.

The regulations in Toronto sixty-five years ago are now considered overly restrictive, but they were not as severe as were rules in Quebec province at that time. When I went to study Canon Law at Laval University in Quebec City in the fall of 1939, regulations were much stricter. No curate could have a phone in his room, or own a car. In parish visiting one was expected to stand at the door except for sick calls. It was obligatory for a priest to wear the soutane outside at all times, even when riding a bicycle or skiing or skating. Priests were forbidden to attend movie theatres or even professional hockey games. We were allowed to attend classical musical concerts at the Palais Montcalm. Yet in Quebec also, the morale of the clergy was high, and there was always much laughter and good conversation and solid piety at the Maison des Etudiants, where I lived.

All in all perhaps the Toronto Blue Laws were not so Blue after all.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article was originally published in Emeritus.