Tag: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Fifty Reasons Why the Winnipeg Statement Should Be Recalled. By Monsignor Vincent Foy

Originally published in Catholic Insight, October, 2003.  Also published in “Birth Control: Is Canada Out of Step with Rome?”, Life Ethics Center, 2005.

Fifty Reasons Why the Winnipeg Statement Should be Recalled

By  Monsignor Vincent Foy

 
“But you, O Lord, are close; Your commands are truth,
Long have I known that your will is established forever.”    

–Psalm 119

This year is the 35th anniversary of the great charter of life and love called “Humanae Vitae.” It was signed by Pope Paul VI on July 25th, 1968. This year is also the 35th anniversary of a commentary on that encyclical given by the Canadian bishops. It was published on Friday September 27th, 1968 , at the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg and was entitled “Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae.”

The encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Winnipeg Statement do not say the same thing. The encyclical declares, invoking the authority of Christ, that contraception is to be “absolutely excluded as a licit means of regulating birth”( n. 14 ). The Winnipeg Statement, not on the authority of Christ, but on the authority of the Canadian bishops, says:

“Counselors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that, because of particular circumstances they are involved in, what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him, does so in good conscience” (n. 26 ).

While the Church teaches that the prohibition of contraception is a moral absolute, the Canadian bishops say it is not. It is the same as saying that there are circumstances in which fornication and adultery and sodomy are legitimate.

It is evident, both philosophically and empirically, that the Church cannot survive where the doctrine of Humanae Vitae is not taught and lived. In the Winnipeg Statement, through sophistry, are sown the seeds of the destruction of the Catholic Church in Canada. In truth, because of that Statement, the Church in Canada is now stricken and dying. There is no hope for a viable and evangelizing Church here until the teaching of that Statement is cancelled and replaced with the truth.

One other observation is in order. There is an ungodly similarity between the Winnipeg Statement and the statement that started the revolt against the truth about married love and contraception. Until 1930 all Christian communities considered contraception a grave moral evil. In 1908, at a Lambeth Conference, the Anglicans reaffirmed constant Christian doctrine in saying it “earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discontinue the use of all artificial means (of contraception) as demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare” (Resolution 41). The betrayal of truth came at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. Then it was declared that a couple could use contraceptives “where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood” (Resolution 15). By 1958 the Anglican Church considered contraception “a right and an important factor in Christian family life.” The Winnipeg Statement is a near clone of the Lambeth betrayal. Soon after it, countless Canadian Catholics claimed that the practice of contraception was a “right.”

It is not difficult to marshal many reasons why the Winnipeg Statement should be recalled. I cite here fifty, but that is an arbitrary number. Many taken individually, and certainly all taken together, indict and convict the Winnipeg Statement of the crime of leading our beloved Church in Canada deep into the Valley of Death.

1. The Winnipeg Statement is tantamount to blasphemy. It is God who determines what is morally good and evil. The Church authentically interprets this natural moral law (cf. Humanae Vitae, n.4).

“Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful, as never to be, for any reason justified. To think or say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10th,1983).

The Winnipeg Statement permits the negation of divine law. Is this not blasphemous?

2. It is contrary to the first commandment of God. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, Jesus summed up man’s duties to God in the words: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). We serve God with all our mind when, enlightened by faith and grace, that mind is conformed to the mind of God through being conformed to the mind of His Church. In the Winnipeg Statement that conformity is tragically absent.

3. The Winnipeg Statement is against the second great commandment of God: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:31). In the spiritual order, that order which concerns itself with eternal salvation, contraception is an act of hate. It is a grave offence against one’s marriage vows which consents to the eternal damnation of one’s spouse.

4. It puts into doubt defined doctrine concerning the sufficiency of grace. The Council of Trent declares to be heretical that opinion which says it is impossible to keep God’s commandments. Humanae Vitae points out the sufficiency of God’s grace to keep the divine natural law prohibiting contraception (cf. nos. 20,21). The Winnipeg Statement says: “A certain number of Catholics find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine” (n.17). Paragraph 26 implies that the law against contraception cannot be observed by some.

5. It substitutes the authority of man for the authority of Christ. The encyclical is given with the authority of Christ (n.6). Bishop Alexander Carter, President of the Canadian Bishops’ Conference in 1968, said: “We faced the necessity of making a Statement which many felt could not be a simple Amen, a total and formal endorsement of the doctrine of the encyclical—We had to reckon with the fact of widespread dissent from some points of his (the Pope’s) teaching among the Catholic faithful, priests, theologians, and probably some of our own number” (America, October 19, 1968, p.349). So human authority was substituted for the divine.

6. It has increased tolerance for dissent. The eradication of the destructive evil of dissent in the Church was the prime purpose of the extraordinary synod of bishops in 1967. The bishops declared, concerning all dissent, whether in doctrinal matters, or in pastoral or liturgical questions:

“Those who are rash or imprudent should be warned in all charity; those who are contumacious should be removed from office” (Ratione habita, October 28, 1967).

The Winnipeg Statement undercut the directives of this synod and make its implementation in Canada practically impossible. So we have had dissent in Catholic seminaries, colleges and schools. It has given rise to a dissenting “Catholic” press, e.g. Catholic New Times and The Island Catholic News. It was a factor in the “legitimization” of selling dissenting literature in “Catholic” bookstores and parish pamphlet racks.

7. It is against Church unity by endorsing a national morality. Perhaps for the first time since the so-called Reformation, we see bishops passing judgment on the authoritative teaching of the Supreme Pontiff. In an editorial in the Toronto Catholic Register regarding the Winnipeg Statement we read: “It will take weeks, perhaps months, for Canadians to appreciate and really believe what happened at Winnipeg last week. It has not happened in the Church anywhere for centuries. And in Canada perhaps for the first time in our history we can become a truly Canadian Church in the deepest sense of the word” (October 5th, 1968).

8. Contrary to some, the Winnipeg Statement is not magisterial. In the book “Married in the Lord” (Liturgical Commission, Diocese of London, 1976, 1978) it is asserted that, concerning statements of national hierarchies, “their official declarations are official teachings of the magisterium of the Church” (p. 61). This is false. Bishops exercise their office of teaching only in so far as they are in communion with the head of the episcopal college, the Holy Father (cf. Canon 375 of the Code of Canon Law). Canadian Catholics have a right to magisterial teaching from their bishops on the vital issue of human life.

9. The Winnipeg Statement has clouded the meaning of collegiality. The claim has been made that the Statement is collegial. Collegiality exists only in union with the head of the College of bishops, the Holy Father (cf. Vatican II, Lumen gentium, n. 21).

10. The Winnipeg Statement advocates relativism or what is called situation ethics.The phrase in paragraph 26, “Whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience,” is a cluster bomb attack on objective morality. What if the course which seems right to him does not seem right to her? What if his counsellor or confessor does not agree with her consoler or confessor? What if the course which seems right to him or her kills a human person? Surely this moral relativism cries out for redress.

11. It teaches an erroneous doctrine on conscience. The Winnipeg Statement says, in effect, that in some circumstances one may form one’s conscience in opposition to God’s law. Vatican II says that the spouses “must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the ‘divine law itself’ ” (Gaudium et spes, n.50). The Winnipeg Statement, in rejecting this teaching, has deformed the consciences of countless Canadian Catholics.

12. The Winnipeg Statement was not corrected by the lengthy “Statement on the Formation of Conscience” which the Canadian Bishops published in December 1973. While that was a good statement on conscience, it carefully avoided any mention of the Winnipeg Statement or the question of contraception or even Humanae Vitae. The result was that many texts and marriage preparation courses continued to quote the Winnipeg Statement as though the Statement on conscience had never been written.

13. The Winnipeg Statement was an act of disobedience to the Holy See. Just before the release of the encyclical on human life, bishops were asked through Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State, to stand firm with the Pope in the presentation of the Church’s teaching and “to explain and justify the reason for it.” This mandate of the Holy See was deliberately rejected. As Father Edward Sheridan, S.J., one of the dissenting “periti” (experts) at Winnipeg, wrote: “The Statement contained no general profession of assent to the whole teaching of Human Life; and nothing that could be interpreted as adding the local authority of the Canadian Hierarchy to that of the encyclical in general.” (America, October 19th, 1968, p349).

14. It is not a right pastoral application of Humanae vitae. The Winnipeg Statement has been defended on the grounds that it is only a pastoral application of Humanae vitae. Bishops have said: “We tried at Winnipeg to make a pastoral application of the encyclical.” But right pastoral application is always in accordance with the truth, and the Winnipeg Statement is in accordance with a lie: that contraception is not always a grave moral evil. In truth, the “pastoral application” of the Winnipeg Statement is a betrayal, a deceit and a fraud.

15. It is not enough to say: “The Winnipeg Statement needs only to be properly interpreted.” There is no way, if words mean what they say, that Paragraph 26 can be interpreted in accordance with the Church’s teaching on conscience.

16. Largely as a result of the Winnipeg permissiveness, Canadian theologians and others have felt free to dissent from the Church’s teaching not only on contraception but on a wide spectrum of magisterial teachings, e.g. on homosexuality, the ordination of women, on the fundamental option, even on abortion. Witness the revolt of 63 Quebec “theologians” against the encyclical Veritatis splendor in 1993.

17. It has led to discord between bishops and bishops, bishops and priests, priests and priests, pastors and associates, priests and laity, husbands and wives.

18. The resulting confusion in Canada over life issues has been an impediment to evangelization. A Church divided against itself does not present an attractive model of Christian living.

19. The Winnipeg Statement has been a major factor in Canada’s suicidal birthrate. The birth rate among Catholics is no higher than among the general population. Once Catholic Quebec has gone from having the highest birthrate in Canada to having the lowest, with now the highest rate of male and female sterilization in all of North America.

20. It has been a major factor in Canada in the crisis of vocations to the priesthood and religious life. Such vocations are in general the fruit of parents living their Faith.

21. Directly or indirectly, it has destroyed or weakened the faith of many Canadian Catholics.

22. Whereas hope and joy should permeate any commentary on the charter of life and love called Humanae vitae, the Winnipeg Statement is sprinkled with expressions of doom and gloom. In paragraph 34 we read: “We conclude by asking all to pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide his Church through all darkness and suffering.” Again, “We, the People of God, cannot escape this hour of crisis,”(ibid.). It concludes with a quotation from Cardinal Newman: “Lead kindly light amidst the encircling gloom.” It has been the Winnipeg Statement that has brought to the Church in Canada an encircling gloom.

23. It has, in general, lowered the level of grace and love in the Church in Canada, leaving countless Catholics open to the seduction of secular relativism.

24. It resulted in the death of our Catholic hospitals. In 1970 a Medical-Moral Guide was approved by the Canadian bishops for use in Catholic hospitals. While it condemned sterilization as a means of contraception (article 18) and contraception itself (article 19), it attached this addendum: “Reference should be made to the Canadian bishops’ documents on the pastoral application of this general directive.” That was the death-knell for our Catholic hospitals. Soon they went the Winnipeg way, and were allowing direct sterilization and the prescription of contraceptive and abortifacient pills and devices for “pastoral” reasons.

25. The Winnipeg Statement was the seed bed which gave birth to the new and disastrous sex-education courses like Fully Alive. In paragraph 33 the bishops said: “Everywhere the problem of sex education and family life is being studied. And this education is happily being deepened by scientific research and diffused through the creative use of mass media. We pledge ourselves to the pastoral priority of encouraging and promoting these programs whenever and wherever possible.”

26. It is corrosive of the authority of Canadian bishops. Bishops maintain their divinely endowed authority through their union with the Holy Father. Deviation from this unity is disastrous to the bishops’ right to be heard and obeyed. Early in the Winnipeg meeting a motion was passed forbidding a minority report. It was claimed that the Bishops’ Statement would be merely a pastoral, not a doctrinal, one. This erroneous claim was an infringement on bishops’ authority in their own dioceses. The effect of the Winnipeg Statement was to diminish respect for the Canadian bishops authority not only in Canada, but throughout the Catholic world.

27. The Winnipeg Statement was not corrected, as some have said, by the “Statement on Family Life and Related Matters,” of the Plenary Assembly of Canadian bishops on April 18, 1969. In that Statement the bishops said: “Nothing could be gained and much lost by any attempt to rephrase our Winnipeg Statement. We stand squarely behind that position but we feel it our duty to insist on a proper interpretation of the same.”

28. The Winnipeg Statement, in effect, put the Canadian bishops in thrall to their own bureaucracy and to dissenting theologians. Fifteen Directors of the Canadian Catholic Conference signed a petition calling for a “Vatican II approach.” They said that a large number of priests were agonizing “in acute crises of conscience because of the apparent directives of Humanae Vitae.” The “periti” or so-called experts at Winnipeg were dissenters Fathers Edward Sheridan, S.J., André Naud and Charles St. Onge. Surely the first requirement of those selected to advise the bishops should be their fidelity to the Magisterium.

29. Because of their adherence to the Winnipeg Statement, all subsequent programs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, e.g., the Working Paper: Responsible Procreation, 1983, have proven fruitless. They have ignored the fundamental cause of most family problems to-day: the contraceptive mentality

30. It has silenced many pulpits. Many priests have been hesitant to preach against contraception not only because of a backlash from parishioners but even from their bishops. At least one bishop told his priests not to preach on Humanae vitae.

31. Some priests were marginalized because they dared to dissent from the Winnipeg Statement. Assent to the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement was sometimes rewarded with promotion.

32. It has unfitted some priests for the hearing of confessions. It is well known that some priests do not refuse absolution from the grave sin of contraception even when there is no purpose of amendment. This invalidates the absolution.

33. It has led to erroneous confessional directives in some dioceses.

34. In a chain reaction, it has lowered the level of ethics among Catholic politicians, judges, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, hospital staff, teachers and catechists.

35. It has facilitated anti-life and immoral government legislation, as predicted by Pope Paul VI (“Humanae Vitae“, n. 17). It made it more difficult to discipline nominal Catholics like Mark McGuigan, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, and Jean Chrétien., who have been principally responsible for the chasm between Church and State in the area of divine moral law.

36. It has led to an aging society with all the concomitant negative societal effects, including a disproportionate financial burden on the shoulders of the young.

37. It has often deprived spouses of married love. Married love never separates the unitive and procreative natures of the marital act. With true married love come the joy and the graces which God showers upon those who are living lives conformed to His will.

38. In a true sense, the Winnipeg Statement permits extra-marital sex. Marriage consent is an act of the will by which each party gives to the other, permanently and exclusively, the right to those acts which of their nature tend to procreation. It does not give the right to contraceptive acts. These are acts of marital unchastity and infidelity.

39. The Winnipeg Statement has often pitted spouses against one another. It has been used as a tool for the seduction of one’s spouse into contraceptive conduct.

40. It has led to countless objective sacrileges. Countless contracepting couples receive Holy Communion with no purpose of giving up the practice of contraception.

41. Through its tolerance of contraception, the Winnipeg Statement has led to a lowered respect for women. In the words of Humanae vitae, through contraceptive practice husbands “come to the point of considering her (the wife) as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (n.17).

42. Many good couples who have been faithful to the Church’s teaching, often at the expense of great personal sacrifice, have felt betrayed and unsupported by their shepherds.

43. The Winnipeg Statement has often made right teaching of Natural Family Planning more difficult. Natural Family Planning is often taught without moral evaluation or reference to the “grave” cause required for its practice.

44. The Winnipeg Statement has been responsible for many childless homes and deprived countless children of brothers and sisters.

45. The Winnipeg Statement has deprived countless children of proper role models. Contracepting parents cannot give their children a right example of chastity and self-giving.

46. It has been the cause of many marital breakups. Contraceptive practice is spiritually an act of mutual hate. The subconscious dynamisms of the contraceptive relationship erode mutual love and respect. A true coroner’s report on the break-up of many marriages would read: “Cause of Death: the Winnipeg Statement.”

47. It has been the cause of invalid marriages. To exclude the right to have children, whether for a time, indefinitely or forever, whether on the part of one or both parties, or by mutual agreement, invalidates the marriage. Numerous couples have invoked the Winnipeg Statement to assert a “right” to exclude children and have brought this intention into a defective marital consent.

48. The Winnipeg Statement has adversely affected married life not only in Canada but in many other countries. One example was the neo-modernist book “Christ Among Us,” by ex-priest Anthony Wilhelm. It approvingly quoted the Winnipeg Statement. Before its Imprimatur was removed by order of the Holy See in 1984, 3,000,000 copies of it had been sold throughout the world. In 1968 there was an immense diaspora of the Winnipeg error by such periodicals as Time magazine, the Tablet, America, the National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, and Catholic Mind. In Australia, it was promoted by a book called “Catholics Ask“, by Father Bill O’Shea.

49. The Winnipeg Statement does not distinguish between abortifacient and non-abortifacient contraceptives. It has led to the killing of countless persons through abortifacient pills and devices.

50. Even the principal author of paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement recognized its deceptive wording. In a private letter dated June 15, 1995, the late Cardinal Carter wrote: “I am not prepared to defend paragraph 26 (of the Winnipeg Statement) totally. In a sense, the phraseology was misleading and could give the impression that the bishops were saying that one was free to dissent at will from the Pope’s teaching.”

Fifty reasons have been given why the Winnipeg Statement should be revoked. There are many more. In truth their number is legion. There are as many reasons as there are persons who have been infected or may yet be infected with its deadly virus.

In the final analysis, the Winnipeg Statement is evil because it is a betrayal of the Truth—the Truth about Life and Love.

Christ said: “I am the Truth.” He also said: “For this I came into the world, to give witness to the Truth.” (John 18; 37). He entrusted the Truth to His Church, to be transmitted through Peter, the Apostles, and their successors. So St. Paul could say: “The Truth of Christ is in me” ( 2 Corinthians 11:16 ). So the Truth about Life is taught in the first century in the Didache. So in 1978, Pope Paul II would say three times, in confirming Humanae Vitae in his last sermon in St. Peter’s: “I did not betray the Truth.” We are considering here the most fundamental of all Truths—that dealing with Life and Love. Pope John Paul VI expressed this verity in these words: “The promotion of the Culture of Life should be the highest priority of our societies…. If the right to life is not defended decisively as a condition for all other rights of the person, all other references to human rights remain deceitful and illusory” (February 14, 2001).

Put flesh on the Winnipeg Lie, make it operative, and it turns into a Frankenstein’s monster capable of destroying the family, society, and the Church. That is now a work in progress. We have seen how civil society is corrupted by contraception. In Canada first came the law allowing the sale of contraceptives, then abortion (1969), then the licensing of widespread pornography, and now the betrayal of homosexuals by the blasphemy of homosexual “marriage.” All of this came about with the complicity of nominal Catholic politicians.

We ought to pray for our bishops, by divine providence successors to the Apostles and guardians and transmitters of the Truth of Christ. The great majority of living Canadian bishops had nothing to do with the Winnipeg Statement. May God strengthen them to reject it.

Catholics justly beg that the Truth of Humanae Vitae be taught in Canada, because it must be taught and known and loved before it is lived.

The Evil of Liturgical Abuse

By Msgr. Vincent Foy

Published in Challenge Magazine, 1997 and The Roman Catholic Faithful Newsletter, December, 1997.               

“The liturgy has its laws which must be respected.”

Pope John Paul II, March 8, 1997

A liturgical crisis has been brewing for a long time. Back in 1973, Archbishop Robert Dwyer of Portland Oregon, wrote: “Sincere Christian men and women in their thousands and millions are reacting against the impoverishment and degradation of the liturgy, as they are reacting against so many displays of enfeebled or uncertain leadership.” (Catholic Priests’ Association Bulletin [England]. Vol. I and II, 1973, p.42). Since then, the crisis has deepened. Abuses are pandemic.

The Instruction “Inaestimabile Donum” (Inestimable Gift”) of April 3, 1980, lists some of the liturgical aberrations reported from different parts of the Catholic world. Among them are “the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayers homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Holy Communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside Church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial nature of the liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends).”

The list of other abuses is long: there is a refusal to give Holy Communion on the tongue, or to those who are kneeling; bowing instead of genuflecting after the elevation; holding hands during the Our Father; unwarranted so-called liturgical dancing; leaving the sanctuary to give the kiss of peace; changing, adding or omitting words even during the Canon of the Mass. One should not dismiss such aberrations as minor. “The relative seriousness of a given rubric should not be our primary concern; our primary concern should be that any deviation from the rule of prayer diminishes the legacy of unity which Christ on the eve of His death asked his Father to bestow on His Church.” (Msgr. Clarence 1. Hettinger, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Feb. 1997, p 57).

Among other liturgical horrors are clown masses, rock masses, and the profanation of the church as a sacred place by the pagan “Missa Gaia.” There is the annual “Call to Action” mass attended by bishops, priests, religious and laity, at which all say the words of consecration. Several years ago, at the “Call to Action” convention in Detroit, Dianne Neu spoke of “Creating Feminist Liturgies.” She said: “Feminist liturgy brings to public expression the faith life of the community, free from hierarchy, patriarchy, curiarchy…I think it is important for us to have the edge that we are moving away from the kind of a Church that can excommunicate us.” (cf. Human Life International Report, No. 151, July, 1997).

A fairly recent atrocity is the “Tyme Mass” in London, England, during which the young danced in a night-club atmosphere, a young woman gave the homily and sesame-seed loaves were consecrated in ceramic bowls. This experiment had the approval of Cardinal Hume as “a means of attracting young people back to the Church.” (cf. Christian Order, May, 1997, pp. 262-269).

A current common practice destructive of faith and morals is the reception by all, or nearly all, of the Holy Communion. This is at a time when sexual sins are rampant and our confessionals are deserted. Many have been led to erroneously believe that the Mass forgives mortal sins. The teaching of the Church is that the Mass “is an antidote by which we are freed from daily faults and are preserved from mortal sins” (Council of Trent, Session 13. C. 2). St. Paul says: “whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor., 11:27). We have a witness to ancient Tradition in the document “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” It reads: “The statement of the Lord applies here also: ‘Do not give to dogs what is holy’…Oh the Lord’s day, when you have been gathered, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure.” (Second reading of the 14th week in Ordinary Time, the Roman. Breviary.) See also the Code of Canon Law, C. 916.

Perhaps there never was a time when our sanctuaries were so dishonoured by breaches of liturgical law. In his recent autobiography, Cardinal Ratzinger attributes the present Church crisis to liturgical collapse.

The importance of the liturgy, the public worship of the Church, can hardly be exaggerated. The work of the liturgy is our sanctification and salvation. Through it we go from sin to grace, from earth to Heaven. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II tells us: “it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished.” (Introduction, n. 2). No private action is comparable to liturgical worship: “Every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the Priest and of His Body, which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others.” (ibid. n. 7).

Among all the forms of prayer, liturgical prayer is pre-eminent. “There is nothing better here below than prayer, and the best prayer is evidently that of the Church, since it is the ineffable prayer of Christ, continued and always active.” (Pierre Charles, S.J., “Prayer for All Times,” London, Sands, and Co., 1929, Vol. II, p. 48).

Not only does the liturgy offer grace and salvation, it is also a vehicle of divine revelation, a preserver and teacher of doctrine, the ultimate Catechist, instructing and teaching on matters of faith. “Lex orandi, lex credendi,” the law of prayer or worship is also the law or carrier of our belief. Pope Pius XII referred to the liturgy as “the principal organ of the Magisterium of the Church” (quoted from ‘Spiritual Theology,’ Jordan Aumann, a.p., Sheed and VVard, London, 1986, p.29).

The measure of charity in the world can be largely gauged by the measure of liturgical worship. “Let there be no illusion. There is no charity possible as an institution, as a thing that is a world-power, outside the sacrament of Christ’s Mystical Body.” (Dom Anscar Vonier, “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist,” Newman Press, 1975, p. 257). Pope John Paul II has affirmed the essential link between the Eucharist and the Church’s spiritual and apostolic vitality. (Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 24, 1980, no. 4).

The Liturgy and Law

Because the liturgy is so important, the Church guards it and protects it with liturgical law. She does this with divinely delegated authority. “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, the bishop.” (Vatican IL Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 22). Bishops and bishops’ conferences have only that authority over the liturgy which is explicitly granted. “No other person, not even a priest, may add, renew or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” (ibid.). The reason for this is that “liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church… they manifest it and have effects upon it.” (ibid. n. 26).

Liturgical law is found in numerous instruments. The Code of Canon Law is not a primary source. It says “For the most part, the Code does not determine the rites to be observed in the celebration of liturgical actions.” (c. 2). It does contain some liturgical law and legislates what is of central importance to this article: “The liturgical works, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the Sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.” (C. 846.1).

The main corpus of liturgical law is scattered over literally dozens of Instructions, Declarations, Apostolic Letters, Notes and other documents. There is the Constitution of Vatican II on the Sacred Liturgy and three Instructions on the Correct Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. There is the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Liturgical books like the Lectionary, the breviary and the Rites of the Sacraments, all contain their specific laws. The Church regulates Indulgences through her Enchiridion. She approves blessings and constitutes sacramentals by which she dispenses spiritual benefits from her inexhaustible treasury of grace.

All liturgical law is ordained not to unduly restrict freedom of worship, but to enhance it, to ensure both the truth and beauty of public prayer. There is a marvellously concise overview of liturgical doctrine and law in “The Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraphs 1066-1209. It answers the questions: Why the Liturgy? Who Celebrates the Liturgy? How is the Liturgy Celebrated? When is the Liturgy Celebrated? Where is the Liturgy Celebrated?

The Intrinsic Evil of Liturgical Abuse

Liturgical aberrations are nothing less than a falsification of worship. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “One who offers worship to God on the Church’s behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority…is guilty of falsification.” (Summa Theologica, 2-2, q. 93, a. 1). The falsification consists in pretending to act in the name of Christ and His Church when one is acting on one’s own. It is a violation of the first commandment. The priest becomes impostor.

Liturgical abuses are a form of Pelagian pride. The abuser acts as though the action of Christ and the Church are not enough. He must supplement it, subtract from it or modify it to enhance its redemptive work. He sets up his own priesthood in opposition to Christ’s.

Abuses are also a form of liturgical nihilism. Humility of worship is replaced by pride, service by disobedience. Scandal replaces edification and the custodian becomes destroyer. What should be a source of grace becomes an occasion of sin; what should be an act of divine love becomes a profound breach of charity. In liturgical nihilism, the abuse is emptied of Christ. In the words of Pope Paul VI, “Anything that departs from this pattern (of loyalty to the will of the Church as expressed in its precepts, norms and structures), even if it has a specious attractiveness, is in fact spiritually upsetting to the faithful, and makes the ministry of priests lifeless and sterile.” (Directory on Masses for Special Groups.)

The Effects of Liturgical Abuses

No good results can come from liturgical abuses. The Instruction, “lnaestimabile Donum” points out four principal effects:

1. The unity of faith and worship is impaired. The Church has always taken care to see that worship and prayer are in harmony with true doctrine. Credal truths are the golden threads holding together the whole liturgical fabric. The axiom ‘the law of prayer is the law of belief is found in a fifth-century document and is doubtless witness to apostolic tradition.

Liturgical abuses often inculcate doctrinal errors along with their deviation from the rubrics. The practice in some churches of saying “all are invited to the table” teaches either that the Mass forgives moral sins or that the state of grace is not necessary for the reception of Holy Communion. The heresy is sometimes taught that without the assembly there is no Eucharist.

Iconoclasm in our churches has diminished devotion to our Blessed Mother and the saints. The Church teaches that “Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and His work of salvation, it is He Whom we adore. Through sacred images of the Holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1193). In some churches, sacred statues have been destroyed, replaced by images of non-saints or worse. The Buffalo church of St. Ambrose has windows depicting the goddess Shiva and Teilhard de Chardin. (cf. “Church Renovations Embody Cluster of Heretical Notions, “by Paul Likoudis, the Wanderer, July 24, 1997, p. 1).

2. Abuses bring with them doctrinal uncertainty. When through abuses Christ is ignored in the Eucharist, surely this tends to bring His presence into doubt. This is done in myriad ways. Sometimes the tabernacle is so hidden that the words of Mary Magdalene could apply: “They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.” (John 20, 13). Christ is ignored through the failure to genuflect when the rubrics demand it, by standing during the Consecration, by failure to make a sign of adoration in receiving Holy Communion. Christ is ignored by loud or idle talk or socializing in church. To ignore a person is to treat him or her as nothing. To ignore Christ on the altar or in the tabernacle is to treat Him as non-existent. So, the ground is laid for doctrinal errors like transignification and transfinalization in place of the truth of transubstantiation. One sees how Luther and Calvin were able to destroy the Mass by presenting it as a celebration instead of Sacrifice, as The Lord’s Supper instead of the act of our salvation through the mystical death of Christ on our altars.

When reverence, decorum, recollection and rightful awe disappear from our churches, more worthy of respect than the Holy of Holies of the Old Testament, the church becomes a place of diminished faith. In the introductory rite for the Dedication of a Church, we read: “This is a place of awe; this is God’s house, the gate of Heaven, and it shall be called the royal court of God.” We ought to conduct ourselves accordingly.

3. Liturgical abuses cause scandal and bewilderment among the People of God. Priests and people are often deeply offended when they see liturgical violations. I know an older priest who has spent his priestly life on the missions. When he returns on his annual visit to his Mother House, he is scandalized to see his confreres celebrating the community Mass without alb or chasuble. An associate pastor who trained altar boys to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament heard the pastor forbid the boys to do so because it was “pre-Vatican II.” Pastors are scandalized by associates who violate the liturgy and vice-versa, causing trouble or tension in the rectory. One couple I met at the “Call to Holiness” convention in Detroit last year told me they drive over 50 miles to Mass every Sunday. At their own church, the priest invited all to say the words of the Consecration because, he told them, “You are Church.”

Examples of such offences could be listed in the tens of thousands. They are a grave injustice and merit grave concern. They are, and should be, shocking. Anne Roche Muggeridge once invited a non-Catholic friend to Mass in Ireland where she thought the liturgy would be save from the despoilers. She reported that she was embarrassed: “It was like taking someone home to meet your mother and having her get drunk and dance on the table.”

4. Liturgical abuses bring “a near inevitability of violent reaction.” Some are bewildered and grieve in silence. In many, the reaction is bitter criticism, anger, resentment or a deep feeling of betrayal. Some stop going to Mass. Some so criticize the Church that their children lose respect for the religion of their parents and are alienated from the faith. Every liturgical aberration sets up its own chain of negative reactions by a kind of tragic Newtonian law.

The Remedies

Obviously, liturgical abuses are eliminated through the observance of liturgical law. This remedy is the vindication of a right. Canon 214 of the Code of Canon Law says that “Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church.”

The law states clearly where the responsibility lies. In his own diocese, the correction of liturgical abuses is the obligation of the bishop (cf. C.392.2). Under the bishop’s authority, the parish priest must direct the liturgy in his own parish, and he is bound to “be on guard against abuses.” (C. 528.2).

To obtain the correction of an abuse, it should be sufficient to draw the attention of the parish priest to an aberration. If this is insufficient, it should be enough to bring the matter to the attention of the bishop. In short, if Church law and legal redress were observed, there would not be a liturgical abuse in the world.

In the present liturgical crisis, when rubrical anarchy is rampant, it is obvious that law and recourse are often ignored or rebuffed. “There will be no witch-hunting in this diocese,” said one bishop when it was reported to him that many parishes permitted altar girls before they were allowed.

What then is the remedy? When shepherds will not shepherd, the remedy, an inadequate one, must be found in one’s personal reaction. Some bear with abuses as a cross and penance. Others legitimately go to another parish or to a church of another rite or a Tridentine Mass. The options licitly available are expertly discussed by Fr. John Hardon, S.J., in a tape entitled “How to Cope with Abuses in the Eucharistic Liturgy” (Eternal Life, P.O. Box 787, Bardstown, KY, 40004, U.S.A.)

The tragedy is that some, in anguish and rebellion, stop going to church and join the literally millions worldwide who have lost their faith in this generation. Not all the responsibility is theirs.

All Catholics have some obligation to right the liturgical wrong. All can pray for their bishops and priests.

Some can join or support societies or movements which advocate right liturgy. Seeing no evil when it is there is the way to further liturgical decay.

Liturgical Abuses and Empty Churches

Liturgical abuses are a form of Liberal Catholicism, the great enemy of the Church today. It is a reincarnation of Modernism. St. Pius X spoke of “the perfidious plot of liberal Catholics.” Of liberal Catholics today, Mother Angelica said recently: “Everything God doesn’t want is on their agenda.” In the moral order, liberal Catholics call for freedom from sexual restraint, the right to premarital sex, contraception, divorce, homosexual practice, even abortion. In the liturgical order, it takes the form of freedom from rubrical law.

Liturgical abuses, like all liberal Catholicism, are a rejection of divinely constituted authority. As Cardinal Newman said, authority is the very essence of our revealed religion, coming through Christ to St. Peter and his successors to us. Liturgy is so bound up with authority and the apostolic hierarchy established by Christ that without it “there would be no public worship as Catholicism understands the liturgy.” (Fr. John Hardon, S.J., “The Catholic Catechism,” Doubleday and Co., p. 450). When the sanctuary becomes a site of rebellion against the Church’s authority, the action of Christ as High Priest is diminished or disappears. Empty churches are certain to follow. There echoes in our ears the chant of Psalm 74 concerning the Temple of Jerusalem: “The enemy has laid waste the whole of the sanctuary … they have razed and profaned the place where You dwell.”

May we pray often and fervently for the preservation and restoration of the Church’s liturgy, “the Sacrament of our Salvation.”

Print here 

 

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