Tag: Life Issues

“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.

Is There a Positive Side to the Winnipeg Statement? September 21, 2008

Is There a Positive Side to the Winnipeg Statement?

By Msgr. Vincent Foy

A recent unpublished article is entitled “A Positive Look at the Winnipeg Statement.”  The reference is to the Canadian Catholic Bishops’ commentary on the encyclical Humanae Vitae, given at Winnipeg on Friday, September 27, 1968.

The “Positive Look” is based on a claim by the late Cardinal Carter that the Winnipeg Statement was nothing more than a pastoral response to the encyclical.  Cardinal Carter said “… there was no question of dissent from our beloved Paul VI… we were about our pastoral business and were not trying to write a theological dissent” (“The Whole Truth About the Winnipeg Statement of 1968”, pamphlet, 1997).

The present notes demonstrate, I believe, the opposite was the purpose of the Winnipeg Statement.  This conclusion is warranted by a look at the prior context of the Statement, the Winnipeg meeting itself and the subsequent events.  The Winnipeg statement had no positive side.  It was a true tragedy.

Signs of Dissent Before the Winnipeg Meeting

1.  Silence

Pope Pius XII had condemned the contraceptive use of the Pill on September 12, 1958.  Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the teaching of the Church in 1964 and 1966, calling it a time of study and not of doubt.  Nevertheless, in widespread attacks on that teaching there was silence on the part of the CCCB and individual bishops.

There was silence when a book called “Contraception and Holiness”, published in 1964, called for a change in the Church’s teaching.  Three of the authors were professors at Toronto’s St. Michael’s College.

There was silence when several speakers at the 1967 Toronto Conference on the Theology of Renewal attacked the Church’s teaching against contraception.

There was silence when Gregory Baum, professor at St. Michael’s College, told Catholics in talks, interviews and tapes that Catholics could use contraception because the Church was in a state of doubt.

There was silence when pressure groups such as the Western Conference of Priests, Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, the Canadian Institute of Theology and fifty-eight “intellectuals” of St. Francis Xavier University called for “freedom of conscience”.

Many Catholics took silence for dissent and began using contraceptive pills and devices, most of them abortifacient.

2.  Submission to the Civil Government

On September 9, 1966, the CCCB addressed a document to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and Welfare: On Change in the Law of Contraception.  The Bishops said they would not oppose the sale of contraceptives.  They said “Indeed, we could easily envisage an actual co-operation 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.”

The CCCB did not affirm that the law against contraception was a divine natural law binding all.

3.  False Confessional Norms

Prior to Humanae Vitae a number of bishops gave erroneous confessional norms.  Among these were Bishop Carter of Sault Ste. Marie, Archbishop Pocock of Toronto and Archbishop Plourde of Ottawa.  Typical was the instruction to confessors of Bishops G. E. Carter of London who said that since there was doubt about the Pope’s decision, confessors should absolve those who contracepted in good faith.

Such norms were in dissent from the Church’s teaching.  Paul VI warned in 1964 and 1966 that there must be no deviation from the Church’s teaching.  He said it was a time of study and not of doubt.

4.  Periti or Consultors

The Periti or so-called experts chosen to advise the bishops at Winnipeg were dissenters from the Church’s teaching.  These were Father Edward Sheridan, S.J., Fr. Andre Naud and Fr. Charles St. Ange.  Not one head of the Canadian matrimonial tribunals was invited.  They had the most experience relative to the evils of contraception.

 5. The Reaction of Canadian Bishops to Humanae Vitae

Many bishops reacted negatively to Humanae Vitae, not with the joyful docility requested by the Holy Father.

Late in July 1968, at the chalet of Archbishop Plourde, just north of Ottawa, a meeting took place of the Executive of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). Present were Bishop Alexander Carter of London, President of the CCCB, his brother Bishop G. Emmett Carter of London, Archbishop Joseph-Aurele Plourde of Ottawa, Archbishop Philip Pocock of Toronto, and Bishop Coderre of Saint-Jean Longueuil. While there, they were visited by Archbishop Emmanuele Clarizio, Apostolic Delegate to Canada, who presented them with copies of the new encyclical Humanae Vitae, signed by Pope Paul VI on July 25, 1968 and addressed “to all men of good will.”

Cardinal Carter, then Bishop of London, describes the reaction of the bishops: “We promptly dropped everything else we were doing and pored over the encyclical.  It was with a certain sense of dismay that we read vital passages n it.  He (the Pope) had clearly taken a position that was contrary to the majority position of his own Commission.  We felt that this was going to be a major problem.”

6.  Archbishop Plourde of Ottawa

In August of 1968, Archbishop Plourde of Ottawa issued a pastoral letter on Humanae Vitae.  He said that individuals have the right to reach a judgement different from that of the Holy Father.

7.  The Mandate of the Bishops

The Canadian bishops had a triple mandate at Winnipeg.

As individuals they had the personal mandate shared by all Catholics of giving internal and external assent to the doctrine of Humanae Vitae.

As bishops they had an obligation to follow the pastoral norms given specifically to them (n. 30 Humanae Vitae).

As a national hierarchy, the Canadian bishops had a mandate to remain faithful to and firm with the Pope.  On July 19, 1968, Cardinal Cicognani, the Holy See’s Secretary of State, sent a letter to all the world’s bishops appealing for unity.  Only recently has the full text of this letter been circulated. A key paragraph is this:

“It is necessary that both in the confessional and in the pulpit, in the press and by other means of communication, every necessary pastoral effort be made that no ambiguity exists among the faithful or in public opinion concerning the Church’s position in this serious matter.”

Cardinal Cicognani said that the Pope called for joyful docility by all in their reception of the teaching of their Holy Mother the Church.

The Winnipeg Meeting, September 1968

We have seen some of the evidence which pre-disposed a number of Canadian bishops to seek a loophole by which the encyclical Humanae Vitae would be nullified.  Now we look at the meeting by which they undermined the encyclical via the mask of a so-called pastoral interpretation and the escape-hatch of the subjective conscience.

1.  Rejection of a Minority Statement

Early in the meeting a motion was passed excluding a minority report or Statement.  The reason given was that the matter to be discussed was pastoral, not doctrinal.  In fact, the opposite was true; moral doctrine of the gravest matter was to be discussed.

2.  Rejection of Orthodoxy

The week before the Winnipeg meeting I met Fr. Sheridan, S.J., one of the consultors.  He told me that he had just read, in German, Karl Rahner’s theory on the right to dissent from Humanae Vitae and was going to translate it and bring it to Winnipeg.  It happened that the same day I had received the American Catholic Register, which gave Karl Rahner’s opinion in English.  I contacted Bishop Ryan of Hamilton to tell him the news.  He asked me to write a short refutation of Karl Rahner’s opinion and send a copy for each bishop to Fr. George, S.J., Secretary to the English-speaking bishops.  This I did.

Bishop Allen later told me that my two-page article was not distributed by order of Archbishop Pocock.  The latter wrote me from Winnipeg saying that he had read my comments and that I need have no fear for the orthodoxy of the Canadian bishops.

3.  A Welcome to Dissenters

Father Ore McManus of the Western Canada Conference of Priests came to Winnipeg armed with a letter from Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J., which defended dissent.  Bernard Daly, Director of the CCCB’s English section of the Family Life Bureau, came with a petition from fifteen Offices of the CCCB calling for “freedom of conscience”.  Both were asked to remain and were brought into the consultation process and even had a share in the writing of the Statement.

4.  Refusal to Endorse Humanae Vitae

Three bodies were at work during the Winnipeg meeting: the Theological Commission of Bishops, the Consultors or “Periti” and the main body of bishops.  The theological Commission voted 8 to 5 to include in the Statement unity with the encyclical on the question of the regulation of birth.  The consultors were greatly agitated over this wording and with the help of Remi di Roo were able to obtain approval by the vote of a wording which would avoid specific approval of the key teaching of Humanae Vitae.  So the vague wording of paragraph 2 of the Winnipeg Statement is the root of which the erroneous teaching in paragraph 26 is the fruit.

5.  Rejection of the law against contraception as a moral absolute

Paragraph 3 of the Winnipeg Statement says there is nothing in the encyclical at variance with the Canadian bishops’ submissions to the civil authorization on contraception, divorce and abortion. This is not true.  In this submission of September 9, 1966, the Bishops saw nothing wrong with a proposed law permitting the sale of contraceptives.  In fact, they even envisaged leadership and cooperation of Catholics in changing a law which “under present conditions they might well judge to be harmful to public order and the common good.”

So the Canadian bishops betrayed the Church’s teaching which sees contraception as a moral absolute, binding all.

Their Statement on divorce was similarly flawed.

6.  Rejection of the Finality of Humanae Vitae

The Statement reads as though the Church was still searching for answers the Pope and the Church had already given (Winnipeg Statement, para., 3,4,6,7,13,18,34). In paragraph 34 we see reflected Father Charles Curran’s “Dissent in and for the Church.”  The Bishops say:  “If … we must as pilgrims do, falter in the way, or differ as to the way, no one should conclude that our common faith is lost or our loving purpose blunted.”

7.  Paragraph 26

This paragraph of the Winnipeg Statement contains the infamous words that under some circumstances parties may “be safely assured that, whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”

The words “that course which seems right to him”, open up a world of subjectivism.  What if this means using an abortifacient pill or sterilization?  What if the course which seems right to him does not seem right to her?  Supposing his counselor or confessor differs from her counselor or confessor?

Paragraph 26 embraces the error of proportionalism.  It allows spouses to balance the right to life with other goods such as the education of children and the health of the mother.  The encyclical Humanae Vitae forbids such a balancing of goods (n. 14).  Pope John Paul II calls such a balancing of goods a very serious error (Address of March 1, 1984).

Paragraph 26 calls the teaching of the Church against contraception “Directives”.  The teaching is not “Directives” but divine natural law.

A good analysis of the paragraph is given by John F. Kippley, founder of the Couple to Couple League:  “A more misleading statement would be hard to imagine.  There are no principles of moral theology that allow a person to 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” (John F. Kippley, Sex and the Marriage Covenant, Cincinnati Ohio: The Couple to Couple League, 1991, p. 145).

8.  Conclusion of the Statement

Instead of rejoicing in our heritage of the Truth, and receiving the encyclical with “joyful docility” as requested by the Holy Father, the Canadian bishops end their commentary by quoting Cardinal Newman’s “Lead kindly Light Amongst the Encircling Gloom.”  The Statement was to bring that encircling gloom.

The Post Winnipeg Events and Consequences

1.  The refusal of Full Assent to the Encyclical

Of prime importance is the admission of Bishop Alexander Carter. He said “It was something of an identity crisis.  For the first time 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”  (America magazine, Oct. 19, 1968, p. 349).  Please note the words “For the first time”, “simple Amen” and the reference to the doctrine of the encyclical.  The bishops claimed the right to pass judgement on the teaching of the Pope and Church.

2.  A Second Letter from Archbishop Pocock

After the Winnipeg meeting, but before he left Winnipeg, Archbishop Pocock of Toronto wrote me a second letter. He said that the Canadian bishops had spoken with near unanimity, that he expected me to accept their decision and to absolve those who contracepted in good faith.

3.  What the Winnipeg Statement Communicated

As important as what the Winnipeg Statement said is what is communicated.  It communicated dissent, ambivalence and compromise.  Numerous examples of this could be given.  A fair assessment was given in an editorial by Dale Francis in the Twin Circle newspaper for October 20, 1968:  “The practical consequence has been that it has been interpreted as virtually negating the Pope’s proscription of contraception.”

Countless couples have claimed that the Winnipeg Statement gave them permission to contracept.

4.  Thanks for a Commentary Criticizing the Winnipeg Statement

At the request of Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington, in whose Archdiocese the American bishops were to gather to discuss the encyclical Humanae Vitae, I wrote a commentary on the Winnipeg Statement. It was highly critical of the Canadian Statement.  I also sent a copy to the Holy See. I received a letter of thanks from Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State.  He conveyed thanks and a blessing form the Holy Father, as well as his own thanks.

The letter was sent open to Archbishop Clarizio, the Apostolic Delegate with instructions that it be sent open to my Archbishop who was to present it open to me.  The Archbishop gave me the letter with the words “I have been asked to give this to you.”  I read the letter in his presence and thanked him.  He made no comment.

5.  The Refusal by L’Osservatore Romano to print the Winnipeg Statement

Although the official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano printed several Statements of National Hierarchies on the encyclical Humanae Vitae, it refused to print the Canadian Statement.  When asked by the president of the CCCB why it was not printed, the editor of the English-speaking edition replied that is was not printed because it was a disgrace.

6. Education was Infected

Two of the seven priests dismissed from St. John Vianney Seminary in Buffalo for dissent form Humanae Vitae were welcomed into St. Augustine’s Seminary in Toronto.  Dissent spread through seminaries e.g. St. Peter’s in London, Ontario.  Texts like “Married in the Lord” by Father Michael Prieur, “Christ Among Us” by Wilhelm, marriage preparation courses, family life programs, and CCCB kits all carried the life-destroying Winnipeg message.

7.  Approval by Bishop Carter of London of the text “Married in the Lord”

In 1966, I wrote to Bishop Gerald Emmett Carter of London about errors in the text “Married in the Lord” by Father Michael Prieur, professor of moral theology at St. Peter’s Seminary.  Fr. Prieur taught that the teaching of Humanae Vitae could be changed; though three Popes said it could not.  He said it was not always necessary to confess the practice of contraception.  He even taught that couples having intercourse before marriage should practice periods of abstinence.

Bishop Carter defended Fr. Prieur.  He wrote to me that he had full confidence in Father Prieur, that he had not only given the text his “Imprimatur” but had helped Father Prieur “over the rough spots”.

8.     Sterilization in Catholic Hospitals

In 1970 the Medico-Moral Guide approved by the Canadian Bishops for use in Catholic hospitals contained a prohibition of sterilization as a means of birth control (Article 18).  But there is an addendum.  It reads “Reference should be made to the Canadian Bishops documents on the pastoral application of this general direction.”  This addendum gave the green light to moral relativism in our hospitals under the cloak of “freedom of conscience” as taught by the Winnipeg Statement.  When I protested the sterilization in St. Michael’s Hospital of a parishioner, I was told by the Superior “The Archbishop says that what we are dong here is in accordance with the thinking of the Canadian Bishops.”

Conclusion

The article “A Positive Look at the Winnipeg Statement” is based on the claim by Cardinal Carter that the Statement was a mere pastoral response.  It has been shown that it was a pastoral response not in conformity with the teaching of Humane Vitae.  A right pastoral response is always in conformity with the truth.

On May 30, 1983, Pope John Paul addressed the participants in the first Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Family.  Among other things he discussed the need for pastoral action to be faithful to Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio:

“It is absolutely necessary that the pastoral action of Christian communities be totally faithful to the teaching of the Encyclical Humane Vitae and to the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio.  It would be a great error to set up pastoral requirements in opposition to doctrinal teachings since the very first service that the Church must perform for people is to tell them the truth of which she is neither the author nor the mother”  (L’Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1983).

We ought all work and pray for the recall of the tragic Winnipeg Statement.

Msgr. Vincent Foy

September 21, 2008

Humanae vitae Reflects the Teaching of Christ

Published in Catholic Insight, September, 2008.

Scan_20140405Humanae vitae Reflects the Teaching of Christ

By Msgr. Vincent Foy

The full text of Humanae vitae may be found on the Vatican website under Encyclicals.  The encyclical teaches nothing new, but reaffirms the teaching against contraception “which has been handed down from the beginning until now” in the words of Pope Pius XI, on Dec. 31, 1930, in his encyclical on marriage (Casti Connubii).

What makes the reading and study of Humanae Vitae so important today is that its teaching remains under unprecedented attack.  That attack has been from within.  It is as though the World, the Flesh, and the Devil had conspired against God’s love.

To defend Humanae Vitae one does not have to be a philosopher, theologian or scientist.  One need know only the basics of the Catholic Faith.

Cardinal Newman tells us that the very essence of our revealed religion is authority, coming down from God and Christ through Peter and his successors to us.  The Pope has the right to speak in the name of the Church as its Head and Vicar of Christ by his own authority (cf. Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 22).  The encyclical makes it clear that it conveys the Church’s teaching:  “The Church teaches… that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” (H.V. n.11).

To make it abundantly clear that it is in his capacity as Vicar of Christ that he is speaking, the Pope says:  “We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions” (H.V. n.6).  To obviate objections on the extent of the Church’s mandate, the Pope affirms that it extends to the whole moral law, including the natural law.  “For the natural law, too, declares the Will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for man’s eternal salvation” (H.V. n.4).

There we have it.  The teaching of Humanae Vitae is given us with the authority of Christ.  The lips proclaiming it are the lips of Pope Paul VI, but the message is that of Christ Himself.  The consequences are great and good.

The fruits of dissent

There are great evils in the world today, but the greatest is the Contraceptive Mentality, parent of the Culture of Death.  It is anti-God, anti-Church, anti-society, anti-family, anti-spousal and anti-self.

Contraception makes a lie of the marriage covenant.  There is no longer total self-giving in the marriage act.  It no longer symbolizes the union of Christ with his Church.  It is a broken, defaced mockery of that union.  Contraception replaces self-giving love with the hate of marital abuse. Because it is a species of infidelity within marriage, it makes spouses enemies of one another, cooperators in each other’s spiritual ruin.  When the marriage is entered into with the intention to exclude the right to children, that marriage is null and void.

The fruits of assent

On the other hand, great and good are the fruits of obedience to Humanae Vitae.

As St. John tells us, God is love, and so marriage is from love and for love.  It is “the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love” (H.V. n.8).  The encyclical is a support of the three essential goods of marriage:  fidelity, permanence and openness to human life.

In paragraph 21 of the encyclical, some of the fruits of acceptance of God’s law of love are enumerated.  These include enrichment of the personalities of the spouses with spiritual values, serenity and peace and facilitation of the solution of many problems.

A plea

The late great theologian, Father John Hardon S.J., gave a lecture towards the end of his life, entitled “Our Greatest Moral Responsibility: to Convert the Contraceptive Mentality.”  May we all take upon ourselves a share of that responsibility.

St. Augustine tells us that we are living in the land of the dying, but this land of the dying is God’s way of leading us to the land of eternal life.  We ought to pray for those who are contracepting.  God’s mercy calls them to repentance, restoration to peace, grace, true love and then, to eternal life.