Tag: conscience

Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada

Published October, 2010, in Catholic Insight.

Scan_20140410Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada

By Monsignor Vincent Foy                                                          

At the conclusion of their 2008 plenary assembly, which took place at Cornwall from the 22nd to the 26th of September, the Canadian bishops issued a pastoral letter called “Liberating Potential.” In it all the faithful are invited to discover or rediscover the encyclical Humanae Vitae issued by Pope Paul VI in July of 1968.

This was a giant step towards undoing the rampant dissent from the encyclical which has ravaged the Church in Canada for over forty years and left our Church in suicidal mode. The contraceptive mentality has so devastated the Church that we are reminded forcefully of the truth expressed by Francis Thompson in his poem “The Hound of Heaven.” He puts in the mouth of Christ these words:

 “All things betrayeth thee

Who betrayest Me.”

The pastoral “Liberating Potential” is only the first step. Not only must truth be affirmed, but error must be refuted. Dietrich von Hildebrand, called by Pope Pius XII “The 20th century doctor of the Church,” has this to say in this context: “It does not suffice to present the true position on any matter: one must also refute the errors” (cf. “The Charitable Anathema” Dietrich von Hildebrand published by Alice von Hildebrand, 1993, p. 81).

The Primary Importance of Restoring Humanae Vitae

 Few Canadian Bishops have prioritized the restoration of Humanae Vitae. Yet it surely is the most important need of the Church in Canada. Paragraph 17 of Humanae Vitae details the consequences of artificial methods of contraception. It opens the way to marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Woman is reduced to an instrument for the satisfaction of lust. It places a dangerous weapon in the state’s hands, with the possibility of forcible population control and genetic engineering.

It would take a lengthy article to detail the evil fruits of rejecting the charter of life and love called Humanae Vitae. Contraception is anti-God, anti-Church, anti-society, anti-family, anti-spousal and anti-self.

Charles Rice, formerly Professor of Law at Notre Dame University, gives this assessment: “Contraception is the defining evil of our time. Its legitimization leads inevitably, not only to abortion and euthanasia, but to a host of evils including promiscuity, divorce, pornography, and homosexuality. The contraceptionist denies to God the right to be God. In this light, the contraceptive movement is diabolic, a replay of the original script.”

We read that “Of the multitude of side effects noted over almost forty years of experience with OC (oral contraceptives), five very serious risks are associated with OC use: increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease; infertility; cervical and breast cancer; and ectopic pregnancy” (“Abortifacient Drugs and Devices: A Short Review” by Bogomir M Kuhar, PharmD, Eternal Life, 902W. Stephen Foster Ave., Bardstown, KY, 40004 USA; 1 for $2US).

We learn from Dr. Bogomir that there are approximately six times as many infant homicides through OC as there are surgical abortions.

Given the horrendous effects of contraception and its potential to destroy the Church, surely its rejection should be a priority in all pastoral initiatives.

Dissent

The contraceptive mentality did not spring up over night like a mushroom. It was the bad result of several years in which many Canadian bishops listened to dissident theologians rather than the magisterium of the Church.

In 1964 a book was published by Herder and Herder called “Contraception and Holiness.” It was presented as a “balanced and perceptive declaration of Christian dissent.” Among the contributors were three professors of St. Michael’s College in Toronto: Gregory Baum, OSA, Stanley Kutz, CBS, and Leslie Dewart. There was no condemnation of this book from our bishops.

The Toronto Globe and Mail printed an interview with Gregory Baum on April 9, 1966. It was entitled “Catholics May Use Contraceptives Now”. He asserted that the traditional norm has become doubtful and therefore could not be imposed. His views got widespread coverage (e.g. Time Magazine, April 22, 1966). Letters of support were printed from Leslie Dewart, Mark McGuigan, Cecilia Wallace and others. I spoke to Archbishop Pocock but he saw no need to respond. Unchecked, a year later, Gregory Baum was saying that even if the Pope came out against artificial contraception, his decision would be irrelevant (The Globe and Mail, April 12, 1967).

After the encyclical was published on July 29, 1968, dissent in Canada began on July 30th. Like termites, dissenters began destroying Church teaching from within. Father Edward Sheridan, SJ, said the encyclical “did not necessarily demand absolute obedience.” Gregory Baum said Catholics had the right to dissent. Father Walter Principe, CSB, wrote “I hope that they (the Canadian Bishops) will make clear to all that one who dissents with a well-informed and well-formed conscience is still a loyal Catholic in good standing” (The Globe and Mail, Aug. 9, 1968).

On a CBC coast to coast television program on August 18, Fr. Edward Sheridan SJ, Father Edward Crooker CSB, and Father Walter Principe CSB, attacked the encyclical. Pressure groups sprang up. Among those calling for “freedom of conscience” were the Western Canadian Conference of Priests, the Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, Catholics in Dialogue and fifty-eight “intellectuals” of St. Francis Xavier University (the “cream of Antigonish” their Bishop said). Most significant was that fifteen Directors of the departments at the Canadian Catholic Conference signed a statement calling for a “Vatican II” approach. They said a larger number of Canadian priests were agonizing in acute crises of conscience “because of the apparent directives of Humanae Vitae”. Even the Christian Family Movement, formerly so devoted to implementing Church teaching on marriage, signed a protest against Humanae Vitae addressed to Archbishop Pocock of Toronto. It had come under the influence of Gregory Baum.

Many bishops, priests and people had been seduced by Gregory Baum’s claim that the period before Humanae Vitae was one of doubt and that a doubtful law did not oblige. Pope Paul VI had reaffirmed the teaching of the Church in 1964 and 1966, calling it a time of study and not of doubt.

The Winnipeg meeting of the CCCB was loaded with “periti” who were dissenters. There were Fr. Edward Sheridan SJ, professor at Regis College, Toronto, Fr. Andre Naud, president of the Canadian Institute of Theology,     Fr. Charles St. Ange, director of the French section of the CCC Family Life Bureau, Fr. Ora McManus of the Western Canadian Conference of Priests, and Bernard Daly, director of the English CCC Family Life Bureau, came to present petitions. They were asked to remain and were brought into the consultation process.

Already many Canadian bishops had given in to the cries of dissenters rather than the voice of the Pope invoking the authority of Christ (Humanae Vitae n. 6). Cardinal Leger at Vatican II, on Oct. 29, 1964, advocated that fecundity should be a duty pertaining to the state of matrimony as a whole rather than to an individual act. He said “Confessors are assailed by doubts. They no longer know what to answer.” In some dioceses, as in Toronto, in 1964, confessional norms were given contrary to Church teaching. In London in 1967 priests were told “if doctors can be confused about the scientific aspect of the Pill, then priests should be confused about the morality of the use of the Pill.” Pope Pius XII had condemned the contraceptive use of the Pill on Sept. 22, 1958.

In Canada dissent remains widespread and rarely checked. Note that Sister Joan Chittister OSB, who had rejected magisterial teaching on many issues, was a speaker on the National Catholic Mission for 2010. The rejection of dissent by the competent authority is essential to the recovery of Humanae Vitae in Canada.

Contraception and Civil Law

On September 9, 1966, the CCCB submitted to the Canadian House of Commons Committee on Health and Welfare a document on the proposed change in the law on contraception. Until that time, it was a punishable crime to give information about or to distribute the means of preventing conception.

Incredibly, the Canadian bishops did not oppose the legislation although the prohibition of contraception is a moral absolute, binding all, Catholic and non-Catholic. They said that the good of public peace “might well be lost by attempts to oppose it” i.e. attempts to oppose the new legislation. They embraced the error of relativism when they said: “A large number of our fellow citizens believe that this law (the present legislation) violates their rights to be informed and helped towards responsible parenthood in accordance with their personal beliefs.” They went so far as to say “We would easily envisage an active cooperation and even leadership on the part of lay Catholics to change a law which under present conditions they might well judge to be harmful to public order and the common good.”

So, our Canadian Bishops became complicit in infant homicides through contraceptives and the prevention of millions of persons who should have been and never will be. This betrayal of Catholic doctrine deserves an apology and correction from our bishops.

The Winnipeg Statement

If Canada is to recover the truth of Humanae Vitae, our bishops must reject the Winnipeg Statement of September 27, 1968. This was the Canadian Bishops’ response to the request of the Holy See to stand firm with the Pope on his presentation of the Church’s teaching and “to explain and justify the reason for it.” Winnipeg was a grand opportunity to stop the errors already widespread in seminaries, colleges, pulpits and confessionals. Instead, it was an affirmation and confirmation of all the dissent which preceded it.

The full analysis of the errors, double-talk and dissent of the Winnipeg Statement has yet to be written. The worst paragraph is n. 26. When I met Cardinal Pignedoli, former Apostolic delegate to Canada on September 27, 1968, he said to me “Do you not think paragraph 26 is the worst?” Indeed, it was. Here is the text: “Counselors 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 or 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 chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.” Thousands of times, couples have used this “killer paragraph” to justify their use of contraceptive Pills and devices, whether abortifacient or non-abortifacient.”

It is not surprising that Bishop Alexander Carter, President of the CCCB, admitted that the Statement was not a formal endorsement of the encyclical. Father Edward Sheridan SJ, one of the “periti” 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.” (Canadian Bishops on “Of Human Life”, by Rev. Edward Sheridan SJ, America, Oct, 19, 1968, p. 349). No wonder Douglas Roche wrote in the Western Catholic Reporter (Oct. 2, 1968): “The issue is over in Canada. Catholics are free to use contraceptives if their informed conscience so prompts them.”

Cardinal Eduard Gagnon, P.S.S., (1918-2007), one-time head of the Committee of the Family and later President of the Council for the Family, expressed more than once the opinion that those Canadian bishops who supported the Winnipeg Statement were in schism. In truth, by the Winnipeg Statement, Canadian bishops became promoters of mass murder and complicit in turning thousand of sewers into tombs.

Double Talk or Double Think

Double talk is the affirmation of two contradictory positions. It is a destroyer of the truth. It was used in the Winnipeg Statement itself and subsequent Statements to permit contraception.

Many persons saw the double talk in the Winnipeg Statement. One wrote me: “The Bishops are talking out of both sides of their mouth at once.” Another wrote: “The whole section (par. 17 of the Statement) is a prime example of double-think, which is the ability to hold two diametrically opposed views in one’s mind at the same time and believe both of them” (John C. Caines, BC Catholic, Oct 17, 1968).

In the wake of much criticism of the Winnipeg Statement the CCCB (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) set up a special “ad hoc” committee to reply to this criticism. Its purpose was “to follow up the Canadian Bishops September 1968 Statement on Humanae Vitae.” The report of the Committee was adapted by the General Assembly of Canadian Bishops on April 18, 1969. In part, it read “Nothing could be gained and much lost to rephrase what we have said in Winnipeg. We stand squarely behind our position but we feel it our duty to insist on a proper interpretation of that position.” At the same time they said “We wish to reiterate our positive conviction that a Catholic Christian is not free to form his conscience without consideration of the magisterium, in the particular instance exercised by the Holy Father in an encyclical letter.” They omit to say that there is an obligation not only to consider the Church’s magisterium, but to conform to it (cf. Vatican II, The Church in the Modern World, n. 50). This double-talk led to the widespread acceptance of the death-dealing paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement.

In December of 1973, the Canadian Bishops published a lengthy “Statement on the Formation of Conscience.” It was a good Statement. The late Msgr. William Smith, a much respected moral theologian and professor at Dunwoodie Seminary, told me that it was likely the response to a request from the Holy See. The problem was that, though it spoke of moral absolutes and the obligation of conforming one’s conscience to the magisterium of the Church, it made no reference to the Winnipeg Statement or contraception. It had no appreciable effect in correcting the Winnipeg error. The main writer of the Statement continued to support the Winnipeg Statement. After that Statement, an Archbishop wrote to me that he did not waver in his support of the Winnipeg Statement, but hoped that would not affect our friendship. In effect, this Statement on Conscience became nothing more than double talk.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops issued “Guidelines for Family Life Education” on May 11, 1977. It repeated paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement. We are told, “This Statement cannot be understood as lessening the full force of the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception” (p.11). How else could it be understood? On November 1, 1983, the Bishops of Ontario issued guidelines. Again they reaffirmed par. 26 of the Winnipeg Statement. Once more, we have double-talk.

There has been much double-talk in Marriage Preparation courses. One, called Mosaic, published by Novalis (1980, 1986), calls the teaching of Humanae Vitae an “ideal” and “views.” It is replete with other double-talk, including par. 26 of the Winnipeg Statement.

The CCCB Working Papers on Marriage and the Family

In 1978, Father Dennis Murphy, General Secretary of the CCCB, announced that the theme of Christian Family Life would be the future work of the Canadian Conference. He described the plight of the family in Canadian as extremely serious (Catholic Register, July 22, 1978).

The first step in this recovery of the family was a CCCB Working Paper on “Marriage and the Family.” It was a text of 190 pages. Amazingly, there is no mention of Humanae Vitae. It relies largely on theological opinion, including that of Schillebeecks, Rahner, Fuchs, Boff and others. It talks of “A New Style of Church.” It criticizes those who “Continue to stress the clerical character of the Church. It confirms the Winnipeg Statement by recommending gravely defective marriage preparation courses such as “Projet Mariage” and “Mosaic”.

A second working paper called “Responsible Procreation” was issued in 1983. It was part of a kit called “Responsible Parenting.” It was Canada’s response to the Synod on the Family, but refers to Familaris Consortio only once. It follows the syncretic approach of quoting from dissenting hierarchies and dissenting theologians e.g. Curran, Rahner, Shannon, Haring, as well as some orthodox sources. It creates an impression of uncertainty and confusion. It concludes, “To state that it is possible for everyone to carry out this law (against contraception) would risk creating in the faithful a feeling of despair and guilt” (p. 52).

These disastrous working papers did nothing to stop the deterioration of family life in Canada. Are Catholics not entitled to an orthodox correction of errors? Should there not be an investigation by the CCCB on how these anti-magisterial views could be presented as truth to the Canadian people?

Spiritual Means

The contraceptive mentality underlying the culture of death is first of all a spiritual problem and the extermination of this spiritual plague demands a spiritual solution.

Our primary source of grace is the Eucharist. Of immense value are Masses for Life. Bishops could order or request archdiocesan programs of Masses for Life. Priests in their parishes could have Masses for Life. The laity could offer Masses for Life. A multitude of Masses for Life, against abortion and contraceptive practice would bring a multitude of blessings.

Next come Holy Communions for life:  for children in the womb, for pregnant women, for those who have had abortions, for broken families, for  those preparing for marriage, for the courage to have large families, for the grace to forego contraception. These are some of the intentions for which Holy Communion could be offered.

During World War II, many bishops ordered an extra prayer at Mass for peace. It was called an “oratio imperata”. Such an “ordered prayer” could be added to every Mass – for the end of abortion. It should be remembered that more lives have been lost through abortifacient contraception and surgical abortions than by all the wars of history.

Next come sacramentals:  means instituted by the Church to bring Grace. There could be Rosaries, Signs of the Cross with Holy Water, candles lighted, Statues honoured, Relics venerated, Stations of the Cross made, Medals worn, Scapulars and many more – all for the Cause of Life.

No prayer is unanswered. St. Alphonsus said that the difference between a soul that is saved and one that is lost is that one prayed and the other did not. Prayer can mean the difference between a culture of life and a culture of death. Prayer for Life is a major armour in the present great cause: personal prayer, Novenas and Rosaries for Life; informal prayers and prayers from prayer cards. Every individual can participate in the Great Prayer Crusade. A morning offering can transform every good action during the day into a life-saving prayer.

Mortification, sacrifices and suffering have their important role. Sickness and infirmities are spiritual gold, to be offered for the Life cause.

Alms giving brings its own graces. Nearly everyone in a small or large way can contribute to the great glorious struggle for the recovery of Humanae Vitae in Canada.

So, by all these and other spiritual ways the great spiritual arms of the People of God can and must be enlisted in stopping the slaughter of the innocent.

Catholic Hospitals

An essential factor in the recovery of Humanae Vitae in Canada is the reform of Catholic Hospitals.

In 1970, a Medico-Morals Guide was approved by the Canadian bishops for use in Catholic Hospitals. While it opposed contraception (article 19) and sterilization as a means of contraception (article 18) it included the addendum: “Reference should be made to the Canadian bishops’ documents on the practical application of this general directive.” This double-talk was the death-knell for our Catholic Hospitals. Soon they went the Winnipeg way.

My own introduction to what was happening came in the Fall of 1972. A distraught husband came to me to complain that his wife was going to be sterilized in a Catholic hospital. It seemed quite incredible. I contacted the doctor in person and went over with him the Church’s teachings. He listened politely and said: “You should not be talking to me but to your Archbishop.” I visited the Superior of the hospital, a widely respected religious. Her reply was, “Whom should I follow: you or the Archbishop? The Archbishop tells me that what we are doing is in accord with the thinking of the Canadian bishops.” I said I thought the hospital should follow the teaching of the Church. I wrote my Archbishop but knew from the reply that nothing would be done.

Among other fruitless efforts, about 1991, I visited the head of the Cardinal Carter Bioethics Institute, who had some influence on hospital ethics. He did not know of the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of March 13, 1975, forbidding contraceptive sterilization in Catholic Hospitals, and asked where it might be found. Again, no results. A letter to Cardinal Carter elicited surprise at the situation, but on the advice of his public relations consultant, nothing was done.

We now have a situation in Catholic hospitals inconceivable before the Winnipeg Statement. A Catholic doctor, now deceased, told me that he was ridiculed for refusing to perform, or to assist, at direct sterilizations in St. Michael’s hospital.

St. Michael’s hospital is one example of the practice of moral relativism. Others could be named. Nurses have been pressured to assist at immoral procedures. In Quebec, statistics affirm that one-third of women of marriageable age have been sterilized by tubal ligation

With the loss of integrity, has gone the joy and pride of practicing medicine according to the mind of Christ the Great Physician.

It is obvious that to recover Humanae Vitae in Canada there should be a survey of Catholic hospitals. Their reform is the responsibility of our Bishops. If that cannot be done, the hospitals should be declared no longer Catholic and the reasons given. We have as an example Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon. In The Catholic World Report of April 2010 we read that the diocese of Baker is ending its sponsorship of St. Charles Medical Centre Bend because the hospital persists in performing tubal ligations. The bishop said: “It is my responsibility to ensure the hospital is following Catholic principles in name and in fact.”

The Homily

Since Humanae Vitae and the Winnipeg Statement, the pulpits in Canada have, in the main, been silent about the great evil of contraception. In some dioceses, condemnation of the subjective conscience was met with reprisals. I could give details of how a pastor lost his parish when he publicly corrected his assistant, who told the congregation that the Canadian bishops, gave Catholics the freedom to decide for themselves whether to use contraceptives. The associate pastor was promoted to a larger parish. In another instance, a priest preached that the Church was like a mother: we loved her but we could differ with her, as in the case of contraception. I reported this to a bishop and was told “I support the Winnipeg Statement.”

A great step forward would be made if more homilies were given on the prophetic truths of Humanae Vitae. A correspondent to the Homiletic and Pastoral Review (Feb. 2009) wrote, “Until priests preach the eternal problems that result from the ugly sin of contraception things are not going to get better.”

Before the dissent following the discovery of the contraceptive Pill, homilies were regular and faithful to the truth. Even during the Depression when non-Catholic denominations gradually followed the Anglicans in permitting contraception, Catholics in the great majority remained faithful and family life flourished. There was no double-talk. Consider this admirable excerpt of a Pastoral letter of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Hayes given on Christian Family Life in 1921: “Heinous is the sin committed against the creative act of God, Who through the marriage contract invites man and women to cooperate with Him in the propagation of the human family. To take life after its inception is a horrible crime; but to prevent human life that the Creator is about to bring into being, is satanic. In the first instance, the body is killed, while the soul lives on; in the latter, not only a body but an immortal soul is denied existence in time and eternity. It has been reserved to our day to see advocated shamelessly the legalizing of such a diabolical thing.” Cardinal Hayes could not visualise that one day Canadian Bishops would offer to assist in the legalization of contraception, rightly called a diabolical thing.

While all those who preach may expound the multiple evils of contraception and the multiple blessings following the observance of God’s law of life, diocesan instruction on this matter would be of considerable help.

The Prenuptial Questionnaire

Prenuptial questionnaires must be filled out before every marriage. The purpose of the prenuptial investigation is primarily to determine whether there is any impediment to the marriage. The questions are approved by the local bishops.

Until Humanae Vitae, it was customary to inquire whether the couple intended to abide by the teaching of the Church regarding birth control. This gave the priest the opportunity to explain that teaching. If the answer was in the negative, pastoral care required counselling and to obtain enough information to determine whether the intention was illicit or invalidating. If the latter, of course, the priest could not assist at the marriage.

In later years in many dioceses, the question asked is, “Do you intend to have children of your marriage?” If the answer is yes no further question is asked. Yet even though the answer is yes, the intention could be either sinful or invalidating. The priest must determine whether the intention was either an abuse of the marriage, or an intention to exclude the right to offspring. The exclusion of the right to have children, unilateral or bilateral, for always, or for a time, would invalidate marriage consent.

The restoration of the Culture of Life in Canada requires a careful review of the pre-nuptial questionnaire, and questions to be asked, to determine the validity of the consent and the pastoral advice to be given.

Catholic Groups and Societies

Every Catholic group and society should be marshaled in the struggle for life. Primary are groups whose main purpose is to re-establish a culture of life. We are fortunate in having Sisters of Life in Canada. They deserve the support of bishops, priests and laity. Like support should be given Priests for Life, in their noble pursuit of pro-life values. There are other commendable groups like Campaign Life. Every Catholic society should be involved in the struggle for life through many and varied projects. The Catholic Womens League, Knights of Columbus and many others can all do their share.

The Catholic press and media should give primary place to the promotion, spread and catechesis of every conceivable means to build up pro-life values and defeat anti-life policies and groups.

So, step by step society will be permeated with the noble projects and efforts to restore to Canada its divine call to support Family and Life and Love.

Sacrilegious Holy Communions

Statistics vary slightly on the percentage of Catholics of child-bearing age using contraceptives. The percentage is in the neighbourhood of 80%. Although many have lost their Faith, many contracept and receive Holy Communion sacrilegiously. This spiritual evil is a significant factor in the decline of the Church in Canada. A number of American Bishops have asked that those using contraceptives not receive Holy Communion. The caution should be announced in every diocese and every parish. This caution would be a factor leading some to repentance and to the valid reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. An end or near end to sacrilegious Holy Communions is an imperative to the spiritual life of Canada.

Seminaries

Many older priests were taught by seminary professors infected by the Winnipeg Statement. When Fathers D’Amico and Daly were expelled from St. John Vianney Seminary in Buffalo for dissenting from Humanae Vitae, they were welcomed to Toronto and taught at St. Augustine’s Seminary. When I was pastor of St. John’s parish in Toronto (1966-1973), a seminarian came to me and asked where he could find a good seminary. He said that a professor professed not to accept Humanae Vitae but asked that his views remain private.

When I was on a bus with priests and seminarians returning ciboria of Hosts after the Mass celebrated by Pope John Paul II in Toronto in 1984, I was seated next to a senior seminarian. I asked him about the teaching on Humanae Vitae. He said they were told it was a wonderful ideal but of course one could not insist on it in the confessional: penitents had a right to freedom of conscience.

For many years, seminarians at St. Peter’s Seminary in London were taught that the Winnipeg Statement was both magisterial and collegial, when it was neither. They were taught that Humanae Vitae could be changed, when three Popes had declared that the law against contraception could not be changed because it is divine natural law.

Many persons over the years have told me that priests in the confessional have told them that for sufficient reasons they could use the Pill.

In the Winnipeg Statement we read: “The difficulties of this instruction have been felt by the priests of the Church, and by many others. We have been requested to provide guidelines to assist them, thus we will endeavor to accomplish in a subsequent document” (n. 19). That document was never written. It would seem important for bishops to ensure that the present teaching in our seminaries is orthodox.

It is important to note that I am not here imputing the present teaching in our seminaries. I simply do not know what is being taught. I have reason to believe that there is excellent leadership and guidance at St. Augustine’s Seminary in Toronto. I suggest only that the importance of educating seminarians to become good confessors merits a serious review.

Bishops

To our bishops, our chief shepherds, our own successors to the apostles, belongs the arduous task of restoring Humanae Vitae to Canada. To them Pope Paul VI addressed these words in the encyclical:

“We implore you to give a lead to your priests who assist you in the sacred ministry, and to the faithful of your diocese, and to devote yourselves with all zeal and without delay to safeguarding the holiness of marriage, in order to guide married life to its full human and Christian Perfection. Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time.” (n. 30)

Tragically, Canadian bishops as a group betrayed God, Church and family in their Winnipeg Statement and in other ways. The individuals responsible have gone to face God in judgment. Now we are fortunate in having many ardent faithful pro-life bishops. It is for them to undo as far as possible the errors of the past.

We ought to support with prayers and thanks every pro-life word and action of our bishops. May they be faithful to the admonition of St. Paul to Timothy as they “impart the Word of truth without deviation” (Second Letter of Paul to Timothy 2:15). As I wrote on the twentieth Anniversary of Humanae Vitae; “Those bishops who withdraw the Winnipeg Statement and replace it with the life-giving, grace-giving and peace-giving teaching of the Church will be forever honoured.”

End Note

This article is not a complete analysis of the Canadian tragedy. There are many other factors which brought the culture of death to Canada. Catechesis in general has been defective. Children in grade school learned of all the means of contraception. Dissent has been rampant in Catholic schools and colleges. For years errors were sold in Catholic Churches through the dissenting Catholic New Times and some Catholic newspapers. Conferences sometimes featured dissenting speakers. Arch-heretic Gregory Baum was invited to speak in Catholic Colleges. Marriage preparation courses have been defective. Hundreds of thousand of texts supporting the Winnipeg Statement were sold in Canada, the US and even Australia. My aim has been to write an introduction to a great tragedy and to suggest some of the means of restoring the truth about Life and Love given to us through the Church with the authority of Christ (Humanae Vitae n. 6).

June 2010

Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada October 2010 Catholic Insight

“An Historical Note on the Winnipeg Statement”

Published June, 2009, Catholic Insight, republished on  Lifesitenews.com.

 

Scan_20140409 (3)An Historical Note on the The Winnipeg Statement

by Msgr. Vincent Foy

In 1998 I attended the Call to Holiness Convention in Detroit.  One of the speakers was Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, of Lincoln, Nebraska, a great defender of the Faith. I spoke to him privately about the situation in Canada, including the problems caused by The Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Bishops on the encyclical Humanae Vitae. I asked him whether he could give any advice on how the situation could be remedied.

Bishop Bruskewitz suggested that I try to get five or six Canadian Bishops to petition the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a review of the Winnipeg Statement.  He thought the Holy See would reply with an analysis which would make plain to all its grave errors.

In the following days I composed the “Plea for Life” below. I sent it to about ten Canadian Bishops I thought would be most likely to agree to an appeal to Rome. Here is the text, never before published.

A Plea for Life

Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29, 1998

Your Excellency,

This year is the 30th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, signed July 25, 1968 and published on July 29, 1968. Its paramount importance is evident when one reflects that, as Pope John Paul II has said, “The future of the Church passes through the family.” The rejection of Humanae Vitae brings with it a train of evils which destroy family life: abortion, sterilization, contraception, infidelity, divorce, absence of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and loss of faith. It could be said that the progression or regression of the Church depends in great part on the acceptance or rejection of Humanae Vitae.

Canada and Humanae Vitae

While we celebrate a noteworthy anniversary we must lament that Humanae Vitae has not been faithfully taught and accepted in Canada. Statistics vary but it is close to the truth to say that about 90% of married Canadian Catholics believe that they can contracept without sin and that contraceptive practice is not a ban to the reception of Holy Communion. In Canada Catholics abort, contracept, are sterilized and are divorced at about the same rate as non-Catholics. Could there be a more ominous omen of what the future holds in store for the Church in Canada?

The good faith disaster

Even when couples contracept in good faith because of faulty instructions, the manifold evil fruits of contraceptive practice persist. The marriage itself might be invalid because of an intention contrary to the right to have children, whether that intention is temporary or permanent. Abortions might occur as an effect of abortifacient Pills or devices and the marriage act is transformed from love into mutual abuse, so that selfish hedonism replaces sacrificial affection. The contracepting couple becomes anti-familial in their attitudes. If there are children they cannot but be influenced by their parents’ corrupted relationship. Such a partnership is not conducive either to religious vocations or to handing on the Faith.

The Winnipeg connection

A major factor in the rejection of Humanae Vitae in Canada is the commentary on it by the Canadian Bishops called The Winnipeg Statement, signed Friday, Sept. 27, 1968.

Among other controversial affirmations, the Canadian Bishops said, in reference to contraception, that there were circumstances in which “whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience” (n. 26). Who can measure the damage done to souls and families and the Church by this misleading sophistry?

John F. Kippley, internationally respected authority on the marriage covenant, founder of the Couple to Couple League, has said of paragraph 26 of The Winnipeg Statement: “A more misleading statement would be hard to imagine. There are no principles of moral theology that allow a person to choose or engage in actions taught by the Church to be objectively immoral, whether such actions be adultery, contraception, fornication or sodomy. And of course, what applies to one behaviour applies to all the rest” (Sex and the Marriage Covenant, Couple to Couple League Int’l, 1991, p. 145).

Our Holy Father has said that to say there are circumstances in which contraception is licit is to say that there are circumstances in which God is no longer God. Yet countless Catholics have been falsely assured in approved texts and courses that there  are circumstances in which they may contracept and not sin. The authority given is not God or the Church but The Winnipeg Statement.

Here I give only one example among many of how The Winnipeg Statement is still currently used to lead young couples into a life of sin and moral bankruptcy. The Mosaic Marriage Preparation Course states: “For couples experiencing problems the bishops of Canada have said that those who ‘have chosen the way which seems the best for them’ live in the love of God” (Couple’s Book Creating a Family, Novalis, 1980, pp 8,9).

God’s grace is sufficient

The Winnipeg Statement conveys the false notion that for some the observance of Humanae Vitae is not possible. Many Canadian marriage preparation courses have locked into this error. Even a C.C.C.B. Working Paper supposedly published to support the Synod on the Family, persists in the error that God’s law asks too much for some. We read: “To state that it is possible for everyone to carry out this law (against artificial contraception) would risk creating in the faithful a feeling of despair and guilt” (C.C.C.B. Working paper: Responsible Procreation, 1983, p.52). Should not the guilty feel guilty precisely to lead them to conversion and peace?

To deny the sufficiency of grace is contrary to the teaching of the encyclical, to divine revelation and to defined doctrine (cf. Council of Trent, Session VI., Ch. XI).

The spread of the Winnipeg virus

The deviant message of The Winnipeg Statement was not confined to Canada’s borders. It was seized upon by dissenters of many countries to justify their rebellion against Humanae Vitae. Literally three million copies of Anthony Wilhelm’s book Christ Among Us, quoting paragraph 26 of The Winnipeg Statement, circulated throughout the English-speaking world before the Holy See ordered Bishop Gerety of Newark to withdraw his “Imprimatur”. Wilhelm left the priesthood shortly after the first edition, which remained in print for 15 years. The text Path Through Catholicism by Mark Link, SJ, published in 1991 with the Imprimatur of the bishop of Dallas, Texas, has crossed national borders with its endorsement of a false notion of conscience based on The Winnipeg Statement. Other texts and courses used in England and even Australia, have quoted The Winnipeg Statement to try to justify contraceptive use.

An article entitled “Formation of Conscience with Birth Control as an Example,” by Kenneth Overbury, SJ, is still widely circulated in parishes though written in the mid eighties. It says, after quoting paragraph 26 of The Winnipeg Statement: “After Paul VI received a copy of the Canadian Statement the apostolic delegate to Canada, Archbishop Clarizio, informed the bishops that the Pope was quite satisfied with their interpretation and that he (Clarizio) appreciated the bishops’ explaining ‘such an important document with due fidelity and respect to the Pope.’” This statement is untrue (cf. My booklet Did Pope Paul VI Approve The Winnipeg Statement? A Search for the Truth, Life Ethics Information Centre, Toronto, 1997).

The Winnipeg Statement should be revoked

In July, 1978, the Administrative Board of the C.C.C.B. announced that the future work of the C.C.C.B. would be concentrated in a special way on Christian family life – the strengthening of the Christian family, Unfortunately, it was not recognized that no strengthening was possible without the acceptance of Humanae Vitae. Archbishop Carney of Vancouver went to the heart of the problem when he said in October, 1987, “We will not have deep renewal in the Church until the faithful accept the Church teaching that artificial contraception is seriously immoral and form their consciences according to that norm.”

Every attempt at family renewal will fail as long as The Winnipeg Statement can be quoted or misquoted as justification for contraceptive use.

A suggested solution

Even though it is more and more evident that The Winnipeg Statement and its spin-off endorsements have given family life a near-mortal wound, especially in Canada, I believe it is impractical to hope for its revocation at this time. That will happen some good and glorious day.

A present a practical solution is for a group of Canadian bishops to appeal to his Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an evaluation of the doctrinal and pastoral orthodoxy of The Winnipeg Statement. Cardinal Ratzinger has expressed the opinion that statements of national hierarchies which have repercussions beyond national boundaries should first be submitted to the Holy See. While the time for that is past, the post-factum submission of The Winnipeg Statement for magisterial analysis would be of incalculable benefit to Canada and the Catholic world.

Would you be willing to join a Bishops’ Appeal to the Holy See in this matter? If so, I would be happy and privileged to add your name to those who are gong to undertake this blessed project and communicate it to them.  May I please hear from you?

Surely our Canadian Catholics will forever hold in esteem those episcopal shepherds who participate in righting what has been a great wrong.

May God bless and protect you and guide you in the way of Life and Love, Most Respectfully Yours in Jesus and Mary,

(Rev. Msgr.) Vincent Foy, Former Officialis, Toronto Tribunal

The Response

In reply to this plea, only two bishops agreed to submit The Winnipeg Statement to the Holy See for evaluation. They were Bishop Basil Filevich, Eparch emeritus of Saskatoon (Ukrainian) and Bishop Roman Danylak, then Apostolic Administrator of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto.  Because no Latin Rite bishop agreed to the procedure, I let the matter drop.

Recently I came across the reply of Fr. Jerome Weber OSB. As an abbot and member of the CCCB he had the right to vote at Winnipeg. His letter is of interest because it illustrates the indifference of the CCCB at that time to the proposed withdrawal of The Winnipeg Statement.  It is here quoted in full:

Letter of Fr. Weber

Chaplain

St. Elizabeth’s Hospital,

Box 10, Humbolt, Sask, S0K 2A0

Aug 7, 1998

Dear Msgr. Foy

Thank you for the information that you sent me about The Winnipeg Statement on Humanae Vitae and your letter of August 25 [sic].

I was a member of the CCCB when the statement was made, and I didn’t like that No. 26 which became the source of so much controversy.

On the 25th anniversary of the statement I wrote to the President of the CCCB asking that it should issue to the public a statement to rectify what had been done, but I received no reply.  Hence I don’t expect what you are asking for will be done.

Personally, I think efforts along this way will never bear any result – it is a lost cause.

However, I think we should encourage the many good things that are happening – there are several groups of people – usually young people – who are speaking up for chastity to the young people, and of abstinence from sexual activity until marriage. In Saskatchewan there is Teen-Aid, an organisation which sponsors from Grade 7 to 12 about chastity and abstinence. Here, in Humboldt, we have had such teachers going to the schools during the past 10 years, and from reports that it have heard, they usually have a very good reception. I am a member of such a committee.

Moreover, there is the Natural Family Planning movement which is having a growing impact on married couples. There is a very good centre for this in Omaha, Neb. In Canada, too, there are many dioceses which sponsor and promote this movement.

These are positive approaches, and to my mind, are the means which will make a change among young couples beginning families.

Sincerely yours,

Fr. Jerome Weber OSB

Hope for the Future

Until 2008, it seemed that any efforts to have The Winnipeg Statement recalled were indeed lost causes. Then at the close of their 2008 plenary assembly which met at Cornwall, Ontario, Sept 22-26, the Canadian Bishops issued a pastoral letter called “Liberating Potential”. It was almost on the fortieth anniversary of The Winnipeg Statement (Sept. 27, 1968). This pastoral called on Catholics to discover or rediscover the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

This was a promising beginning. We now have a founded hope that past errors will be corrected. We know that it is not sufficient to proclaim the truth, We must also refute errors. The Winnipeg Statement has left its Death’s Head Seal on many programs, texts and institutions, even “Catholic” hospitals.  All of these must be examined in the light of Humanae Vitae and purged of moral poison.

That is our hope and prayer, for the resurrection of the Church in Canada.

Notes on Gregory Baum; By Their Fruits you Shall Know Them. By Monsignor Vincent Foy

It was a scandal to many Catholics that the arch-dissenter Gregory Baum was invited to speak at Regis College, Toronto, on January 17, 1996.  The scandal was amplified when it was announced that he would also speak at the Newman Centre in Toronto on May 13, 1996.  In an effort to prevent this I compiled the following notes on Gregory Baum.  The effort was ineffective, though there was a demonstration of loyal Catholics outside of the Newman Centre protesting the appearance there of Baum.  In my opinion Gregory Baum has done more than anyone else to weaken the Catholic Church in Canada, through false ecumenism, theological errors and his opposition to the encyclical “Humanae Vitae.”  — Msgr. Foy

Notes on Gregory Baum

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them

(1996)

by Msgr. Vincent Foy

Our oldest Toronto priest, Monsignor Ralph Egan, 95, spends his days in prayer and in sending Catholic prayer books and reading material to all parts of the world – free.  He often quotes St. Anthony Mary Claret: “If you can’t send a missionary, send a book.”  Of course he meant a good book.  He is the founder of our Toronto St. Maximilian Kolbe group which distributes free Catholic literature.  He understands the value of orthodox reading.  He has told me that he keeps his strong faith through prayer – and by avoiding ever reading the dissenters or listening to dissent.  He was quite aghast when I told him that Gregory Baum was going to speak at Regis College in Toronto on January 17.  To honour the work of Msgr. Egan and in response to some requests I have compiled some notes on the teaching and conduct of Gregory Baum, marxist and “ex-priest”.  In my opinion he has done more to help destroy the Church in Canada than any other person.   

Communism and Marxism

He is commended in the Canadian Tribune (official communist publication) in 1963 for asking at an Anglican Congress “whether the ideals of Marx were not aims for which the Church should have worked.”

His name led a list welcoming Rabbi Feinburg (considered Canada’s leading Fellow Traveller) back from Hanoi in 1967. 

Doctrine

In the “Christian Century” for April 6, 1966, p.429, he described how Catholic theologians could work together to change what had until now been considered immutable Church teaching.

In 1965, when Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation in the encyclical “Mysterium Fidei,” Gregory Baum accused the Pope of stressing Trent as against Vatican II, of wishing to slow down the movement of renewal (The Canadian Register, Sept. 25, 1965).

Gregory Baum has repeatedly called for a “magisterium of the theologians.”

The Hierarchical Church

Gregory Baum has consistently attacked the Church teaching on the hierarchy and authority of Pope, Bishops and priests.

In a compendium of views on “The Future Church,” Gregory Baum said: “Bishops and popes will not be dressed as feudal lords.  They will simply be brothers who have something to say.  They will have authority because they express what their brethren really believe . . .  In the future Christians will not look down on their fellow citizens who differ from them nor will they regard it as their duty to convert them.” (The Telegram, Toronto, July 1, 1967)

In 1970, at a World Congress on the Future of the Church, attended by about 800 theologians, most of them Catholics, Gregory Baum said: “Theologians must stop defining the Church’s teachings by looking at Scripture and tradition and then trying to apply what they find to the world . . .  Catholics have learned to look at the Church as a Christian movement in which they participate on the terms defined by their own conscience . . .  Father Baum said that one consequence of the new view that secular values are a source of theology is that people have learned to ‘de-mythologize’ the Church and the authority of the high officials.”

On November 24, 1995, Pope John Paul II insisted that “Catholic theologians may not openly dissent from Church teachings or propose ideas contrary to official doctrine.  It seems necessary to recover the authentic concept of authority . . . theology can never be reduced to the ‘private’ reflection of a theologian or group of theologians.  The vital atmosphere for theologians is the Church.”

Obedience to Authority

In the words of Msgr. George Kelly (“The Battle for the American Church,” p. 448,9): “Gregory Baum argued that Rome’s grip on the Church can be loosened by careful violation of law.  In Baum’s view freedom from Rome’s law can be obtained by seizing it in the knowledge that violations will go unpunished.  Baum points to the success of religious orders and Catholic universities standing up to Rome without suffering any sanction . . . the procedure of several American dioceses admitting Catholics in second marriages to Holy Communion receives Baum’s approval because no harm comes thereby to Church unity, with Rome only ‘mildly disapproving.’”

In the National Catholic Reporter for November 10, 1972, Gregory Baum wrote: “With courage and the right kind of discretion, bishops and local churches could deal with their problems even without total approval from the papal offices – without the slightest rupture with the Pope.”

Devotion to Mary

In the early sixties I attended a dinner at Osgoode Hall under the auspices of the Catholic Lawyers’ Guild.  Gregory Baum spoke on the exaggerated “cultus” of Mary in the Catholic Church.  He said there was no evidence of devotion to Mary before the fourth century.  At the time I had been reading a section of “Mariology” edited by Fr. Juniper Carol, O.F.M. on “The Origins and Cultus of Marian Cult.”  It gave numerous examples of devotion to Mary in the first three centuries.  I was convinced that Fr. Baum was deliberately lying.

Contraception

The attack on the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception has been at the core of the dissenters’ attempts to destroy papal authority.  “To repudiate the teaching on contraception . . . throws open the possibility of repudiating all of these other positions (divorce, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia) as well.  The skein simply unwinds.” (B.A. Santamaria).  The Scottish Bishops, in their statement on “Humanae Vitae” said of the claim of dissenters that the papal decision (Humanae Vitae) did not demand assent: “Such an assertion is destructive of all that Catholics understand by the teaching authority of the Church.”

In his attempts to undermine the authority of the Pope, Gregory Baum has concentrated on destroying the credibility of the Church’s immemorial teaching against the practice of contraception.  He is quite aware that in the measure in which he succeeds, the Church dies.

I point out here only a sampling of his attacks on God’s law: 

  • In 1964 Gregory Baum contributed to a Herder and Herder book called “Contraception and Holiness,” “a balanced and perceptive declaration of Christian dissent.”  Another contributor was Stanley Kutz, C.S.B., a Baum disciple, soon to leave the priesthood.
  • In 1965 he joined 37 American Catholic scholars in signing a statement calling for a “qualified endorsement of contraception” and “a change in the Church’s traditional position on birth-control.
  • In 1966, in a feature article in the Toronto Globe and Mail he said, “Catholics May Use Contraceptives Now.
  • In 1967 in an article in the Globe and Mail (April 23), after the majority opinions of the “Roman Catholic Birth Control Commission” had been leaked to the press, he said: “The publication of the texts will help many, many Catholics make up their own minds with a better conscience.”  He said, “Some of the bishops will be quite annoyed that they were not at all informed of these developments.” 
  • In 1967 in the Toronto Star (May 6) he says that a liberalizing in his Church’s attitude is inevitable not only in regard to birth control but to divorce and mixed marriages as well.  He said Pius XI was pushed into writing “Casti Connubii” in 1930 by “Belgian theologians” and “It is my personal conviction that Pius XI made a mistake and that in a very few years we will accept the teaching of the Anglican Bishops in 1930.”
  • In 1968, after the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” was published, he said: “The Pope’s decisions went against the majority report of his own study commission, against the almost unanimous voice of the Lay Congress held in Rome last year, against the wishes of many bishops expressed at the recent meeting of the Synod, and against the weight of contemporary Catholic theology.  The Pope rejected the Christian experience of vast numbers of Catholics and the witness of other Christian Churches . . .  Catholics who cannot accept the papal teaching on birth control need not leave the Catholic Church.  Nor do they become hypocrites by staying in the Church.  If they have formed deep convictions on the morality of birth control, they may dissent from the official position and follow their own tested conscience.” (Globe and Mail, August 1, 1968). 

The objections raised here against Humanae Vitae were precisely those given by some Bishops and “periti” at Winnipeg in the following month.  If it had not been for the black shadow of Baum over Winnipeg, his influence over some Bishops, the Canadian theological establishment and pressure groups, the Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Bishops on “Humanae Vitae” would not have refused to endorse the teaching of the encyclical as it did.  It would have been an enthusiastic endorsement of the Church’s Charter of life and love, and the Church in Canada would not now be in a precipitous decline.

Conscience

Although he did not criticize the Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Bishops in which their concept of conscience was open to criticism, when they did issue a Statement on Conscience which was in accord with Catholic doctrine he publicly criticized it. (December 1973).

On Human Sexuality

In the 1960’s, Gregory Baum was supportive and involved with a psychotherapy group with headquarters in three houses on Admiral Road in Toronto.  A number of priests, nuns and Catholic students joined the group set up originally to explore alternatives to marriage.  It gave great concern to Father John Kelly, President of St. Michael’s College.  An article in The Telegram (Feb. 27, 1968) stated “Father Kelly continues to worry about the way promising priests, student priests and nuns join the group and begin to ease away from their religious duties.”  More unsavoury details could be given.

When the “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” was issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 29, 1975, Gregory Baum criticized it severely.  He said: “The concept of sex only within marriage was no longer adequate.  Even if marriage is the ideal, this does not mean that there is no responsible context of sexual relations for mature single people, the widowed and the divorced.”  In response, Archbishop Pocock declared: “Rev. Gregory Baum’s recently published reactions to a Vatican document on sexual conduct are contrary to official Catholic doctrine and may not be followed as either the teaching or the practice of the Catholic Church.”  Father Baum was suspended from hearing confessions.

Gregory Baum was a consultor with Charles E. Curran and Richard McCormick, S.J., on the book “Human Sexuality.”  Among other things, it said: “The final word on mate swapping has not been said.”  It claimed that there may occasionally arise exceptions to the prohibition of adultery, and “premarital intercourse may be justified if it represents a loving relationship and some measure of mutual commitment before sexual involvement.”  This study was condemned by the American Bishops (Origins, June 9, 1977).

Scripture

Some insight into his rejection of Scripture as a basis for certainty or belief is given in a book: “The Credibility of the Church Today.  A Reply to Charles Davis.”  A review of the book says “One is driven to think it is so uncertain what Our Lord actually said and did, that the immense claims made for scripture as the touchstone for Christian Churches can hardly be maintained.” (Douglas Woodruff in Catholic Truth, Spring, 1969).  One writer described the book by saying: “Fr. Baum’s reply to Davis seems to be much the same as Fr. Loisy’s to Harnack.” (John McKee in “The Enemy Within the Gate”, Lumen Christi Press, 1974, p.27). 

He has repeatedly condemned the Catholic teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture.

The Priesthood

In conducting laicization cases of Toronto priests, I called Gregory Baum a witness only once.  I realized that he promoted the concept of a temporary or “existential” priesthood – i.e., it may have been relevant yesterday but not necessarily today. 

In the Daily Star of April 23, 1966, in an article entitled “Exodus,” Baum said he was not alarmed at the large numbers of priests and religious departing from their vocations.  He said: “By assigning the laity a higher place in the Christian Church, the whole matter of the role of the clergy has to be re-thought.”

Status

In its issue of January 14, 1978, the Catholic Register reported that “Gregory Baum, noted Canadian theologian and outspoken critic of the Church, married a former nun in a private ceremony recently in Montreal . . . the bride is Shirley Flynn, who left her religious order about 15 years ago.”  He had previously cancelled an application for laicization.  According to Canon 2388 of the Code of Canon Law in force at that time, he was automatically excommunicated.  I do not know his present status.  He is not a Catholic theologian except by his own definition of the term.  In 1980, when Hans Kung was declared not to be a Catholic theologian, a group of “60 American and Canadian Catholic theologians, including Baum, issued a declaration that they would continue to regard Kung as a Catholic theologian.”

Conclusion

The above notes are a superficial glance at some of the teachings and activities of Gregory Baum.

I have not touched on his errors in his books, in Concilium, his column in the Catholic Register in the sixties called “The Church To-Day”, the Ecumenist, Compass, Commonweal, the Homiletic and Pastoral Review (in the sixties), Catholic New Times, of which he was a co-founder, and in his widely circulated tapes.

I have not examined his influence at Vatican II, his penetration of religious orders and communities, e.g., the Basilians and the Society of Jesus, his major role in the destruction of the Catholic Family Movement in Canada, his work through surrogates, his indirect influence on the Statements of the Canadian Bishops on contraception and divorce vs. civil law, his indirect influence on teaching at St. Augustine’s Seminary, his indirect influence on the Winnipeg Statement, his part in the decline of the Church in Quebec through his teaching, influence over some Quebec Bishops and support of theologians in their uprising against the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor.”

Nor have I considered his widespread influence through societies, groups, national and international congresses and protests of rebellious theologians.  Cardinal Heenan had the good judgement to ban him from speaking at a Catechetical Convention in London. 

In conclusion, the reason why I believe Gregory Baum should not have been permitted to occupy the Catholic podium at Regis College in Toronto on January 17, 1996, is that he consistently advocates immorality and teaches error.

These are the reasons why I believe Catholics should respectfully request our Archbishop not to permit Gregory Baum to speak at the Newman Centre in Toronto.  A flyer is now widely circulating which reads: “Remembering Vatican II – Memories of the Council from one who was there – a lecture by Professor Gregory Baum, Peritus at the Council, Theologian, writer – Monday, May 13, 1996, 8:00 p.m., The Oak Room, of the Newman Centre of Toronto.  The lecture is Free and Open to the Public.”

Those who wish to voice their concerns may write to:

The Newman Centre,

Roman Catholic Chaplaincy,

University of Toronto,

89 St. George Street,

Toronto, ON, M5S 2E8

Phone:  416-979-2468

It would be a marvelous gift to the people of Canada if the CCCB were to set up a commission to study the influence of Gregory Baum on the Church.

We need all pray.  In the words of a breviary intercession of to-day’s Office:

“Christ nourishes and supports the Church for which He gave Himself up to death.  Let us ask Him: Remember Your Church, Lord.”

(Msgr.) Vincent Foy

Retired Priest

Archdiocese of Toronto

January 24, 1996

Feast of St. Francis de Sales,

Patron Saint of Journalists

Printable copy Notes on Gregory Baum – by their fruits you shall know them