Tag: Th Winnipeg Statement

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

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 and Canada, Forty Years Later. By Monsignor Vincent Foy

Scan_20140401
Click on image to download.

Published in the July/August, 2008 issue of Catholic Insight.

 

Humanae Vitae and Canada
Forty Years Later

By Msgr. Vincent Foy

Introduction

Forty years have passed since Pope Paul VI gave us the gift of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Signed on the Feast of St. James, July 25th, 1968, it was published on July 29th, 1968. It was addressed to Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and all other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Holy See and all the Clergy and Faithful of the Catholic world, and to all Men of Good Will.

Three times in the encyclical the Holy Father invoked the Petrine or divine authority (n. 4, 6, and 31). He said that he intended to give his reply to the grave questions concerning the regulation of births “by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ” (n. 6).

Tragically, the authority of Christ was not enough. For forty years rebellion has been widespread in Canada. For forty years we have experienced the deadly fruit of turning away from Christ in the most critical area of Life and marital Love.

This fortieth anniversary is a suitable time to reflect on how the rejection of Humanae Vitae came about, to consider the malign results of that rejection and the way back to the Truth. Pope John Paul II called dissent from Humanae Vitae the “Great Lie.” This lie remains in Canada like a festering, cancerous wound. Can it be cured?

The Slippery Slope

It will help to discover the way back to the Truth about Love and Life if we first look backwards.

All through the centuries the Church remained firm and constant in teaching that contraception was a grave attack on human life. In his encyclical on marriage of Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI referred to this teaching “which has been handed down from the beginning until now.” He called contraception: “this abominable crime” and “this infamous stain.”

During the depression of the 1930s the majority of Catholics remained faithful to the Church’s teaching. That teaching was confirmed universally by bishops, priests, theologians and teachers.

All that changed in the 1960s after the advent of the birth control Pill. Still there was no change in the Church’s teaching. Pope Pius XII condemned the contraceptive use of the Pill on Sept. 12, 1958. In Vatican Council II married people were taught that in their behaviour “They may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church” (Gaudium et Spes n.50). Pope Paul VI confirmed the teaching of the Church in 1964 and 1966, calling it a time of study and not of doubt.

The tragedy began when many bishops were seduced into listening to errant theologians rather than the voice of Christ spoken to them through His Vicar. They evidently forgot that theology is not the Faith. Theology can seduce, betray and deceive, as it did through the mouths of many. Now we consider how the betrayal of Truth came about in Canada. We examine the highlights, or rather the lowlights, of that betrayal.

Cardinal Emile Leger (Archbishop of Montreal)

The Church in Canada was already heading down the slippery slope to dissent at Vatican II. Influenced by Cardinal Suenens, on Oct. 30, 1964 Cardinal Leger said: “Confessors are assailed by doubts. They no longer know what to answer.” He also said “Fecundity is an obligation. But we should concentrate less on the fecundity of each sexual act and more on the totality of married life… We must affirm that the intimate union of the couple finds its legitimacy in itself when it is not directed toward procreation.”

The Book “Contraception and Holiness”

That same year, 1964, a book was published by Herder and Herder, which further underlined that all was not right in Canada. It as called “Contraception and Holiness” and called for a change in the Church’s teaching on contraception. Among the contributors were three professors at St. Michael’s College: Gregory Baum, OSA, Stanley Kutz, CSB, and Leslie Dewart.

The Toronto Conference on the Theology of Renewal

A congress on the Theology of the Renewal of the Church was held in Toronto in 1967. It was heavily loaded with speakers who were agitating for change in the Church’s teaching against contraception. Among these were Cardinal Leger, Cardinal Suenens, Edward Schillebeeckx, OP, Karl Rahner, SJ, Bernard H¬ ring, CSsR, Bernard Lonergan, SJ, and Enda McDonagh (called by some the “Maynooth Pope of Modernism”). The only speaker who defended the Church’s teaching was Elizabeth Anscombe. Fr. H¬ ring saw the teaching against contraception as coming from a pre-scientific mind appropriate to a former society. Thus again, Canada was being led down the slippery slope towards the contraceptive mentality.

Thus again, Canada was being led down the slippery slope towards the contraceptive mentality.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)

On Sept. 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 in part: “We consider Article 150, which forbids giving information about contraception, as well as the sale or distribution of contraception an inadequate law to day… a large number of our fellow citizens believe that this law 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 do not conceive it our duty to oppose appropriate change in Article 150 of the Criminal Code. Indeed, we could easily envisage an active 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.”

This incredible betrayal of Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception was a factor in the passing of a bill by the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau, legalizing contraception (June 27, 1969).

The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health commented: “Surprisingly, the Canadian Catholic Conference of the Roman Catholic Church did not oppose the law, stating that Canada was a pluralistic society, but that Roman Catholics should not practise contraception.” The CCCB did not affirm that no one should practise contraception. In other words, they failed to affirm that the law against contraception was a divine natural law binding all.

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.”

Gregory Baum

In the summer of 1968, Gregory Baum kept up his campaign against Humanae Vitae through lectures, writings and interviews. He said Catholics could use contraception in good conscience. He attacked the Pope for going against “the Christian experience of vast numbers of Catholics and the witness of other Christian Churches.”

Pressure Groups

After Humanae Vitae, pressure groups sprung up like mushrooms. Among these were the Western Conference of priests, armed with a letter of support for dissent by Fr. Bernard Lonergan, SJ, the Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, Catholics in Dialogue, the Canadian Institute of Theology and 58 “intellectuals” of St. Francis Xavier University (“the cream of Antigonish” their Bishop said.) The chant of all was “Give us Freedom of Conscience.”

Most significant and most disgraceful was that fifteen Directors of the departments of the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops betrayed their offices and signed what one could call a “Pre-Winnipeg” Statement. They asked for a “Vatican II approach.” They said that a large number of Canadian priests were agonizing “in acute crises of conscience” because of the “apparent directives of Humanae Vitae.” In all my experience I never met a priest suffering from such an acute crisis of conscience.

So the stage was set for the great Winnipeg betrayal of the Catholics of Canada.

The Winnipeg Disaster

The slippery slope led down to the Winnipeg Disaster of Friday Sept. 27th, 1968. On that date the Canadian bishops published a Statement on Humanae Vitae. After denying the sufficiency of grace for some (n.17) the bishops embraced the error of allowing married couples to break God’s law by the subterfuge of the subjective conscience. They said there were circumstances in which the couples “may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience” (n.26).

In 1969, Father John Flanagan, founder of the International Catholic Priests’ Association, wrote a perceptive analysis of this device. He said “Among the many attempts to create a loophole through which the dissident cleric or lay person endeavours to escape from the moral obligation of accepting the Papal decision on birth control, recourse to (pseudo) conscience, is the most widespread and deceptive. It is an escape hatch through which Bishops, priests, and lay folk still try to come to the top through their sunken hopes that the law against contraception would be changed.”

So it was and is in Canada.

The Moloch Generation

In the book of Leviticus (18:21) we read “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the Name of your God.” In the same book (20:2) we read: “The Lord said to Moses: ‘Say to the people of Israel: any man of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his children to Moloch shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”

We do not know how many children were thrown into the fire to appease the pagan god Moloch. We do know that the number pales into insignificance beside the numbers now sacrificed to the god of lust, the new Moloch. Every year millions are ripped apart in the womb or through the Pill or other abortifacient devices sent to sewer tombs. It is a horror crying to Heaven for vengeance. “Where is your brother?” said God to Cain after he had slain his brother Abel. “Where are your brothers and sisters?” says God to us today. Can we not call this the Moloch Generation and is not Canada a fully qualified member?

The worshippers of the god of Lust have begotten a long list of illegitimate offspring. These are the fruits of which contraception is the root: fornication, adultery, homosexual conduct, broken marriages, divorce, degradation of women, abortion, pornography, lack of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, loss of Faith and many more. Moloch reigns!

Loss of the Sense of Sin

A characteristic of the Moloch Generation is a loss of the sense of sin. If one can absolve oneself of guilt in practising contraception why not from other breaches of the moral law? Are such breaches not progeny of the same parent: sex without responsibility?

The contraceptive mentality brought with it a grave depreciation of the evil of killing or preventing offspring. Even in the past century contraception was sometimes a reserved sin; that is, a confessor had to apply to his bishop for the special faculty to absolve from it and for the penance to be imposed for what is a heinous crime.

Compare recent penances for contraceptive activity with that of past centuries. Note also that in former centuries the penances were often the same for contraception and abortion. Did they not both share a willingness to sacrifice a human person to lust? We know how seriously anti-life activity was considered when we read ancient penitentials: books which contained suggested penances to be given by confessors. One Frankish Penitential (c.1067) recommends a ten-year fast for those who took potions to avoid conception or to procure abortion. Another penitential of about the same time suggests a fast of two years on bread and water.

Another disastrous effect of self-absolution has been the virtual disappearance of the Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation. Before the prevalence of dissent most Catholics went to Confession frequently, often monthly or weekly. In the encyclical “Mystici Corporis” of 1943, Pope Pius XII pointed out the many advantages of frequent confession of devotion, i.e., when there was no serious sin. Children were trained in frequent confession in all Catholic schools.

Now in Canada the majority of Catholics who practise contraception and still go to Mass also receive Holy Communion.

The Way Back

As Cardinal Newman wrote in a private letter: “It is very difficult to put right what was once put wrong.” So it is with dissent from Humanae Vitae. It is very difficult to replace the self-centred mentality of the Moloch generation with the self-giving mindset which leads to the truth about Love and Life. We have a guide in the third section of Humanae Vitae called “Pastoral Directives.” Reflecting on these directives one could suggest the following ways to resuscitate the dying Church in Canada.

Bishops

In Humanae Vitae, n.30, there is an exhortation to bishops. There we read “Work ardently and incessantly for the safeguarding and holiness of marriage – Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time.”

This exhortation tells us that it is a most urgent responsibility of our Canadian bishops to seek to undo the betrayal of the Winnipeg Statement. Canadian Catholics have a right to ask their bishops for a revocation of that Statement which has led to what has been called a “madhouse of subjectivism.”

In concrete terms it is not defiance of our bishops but love of the episcopacy which leads Catholics to ask our bishops to restore orthodoxy. This includes teaching in our schools and universities and seminaries. It includes correcting errors in marriage preparation courses. It includes stopping sterilization and prescription of contraceptive means in our Catholic hospitals. It includes working towards recall of intrinsically immoral civil legislation. It includes proper formation of confessors.

Great indeed would be the gratitude of Catholics if our bishops had the humility, courage and Faith to revoke the Winnipeg Statement. They would be following the bishops in the Philippines and the Austrian Bishops. The latter announced on March 29, 1988 that they were recalling their Statement of 1968 and were in complete harmony with the teaching of Humanae Vitae and Familaris Consortio and the teaching on human life of Pope John Paul II.

Priests

Vital as auxiliaries of our Bishops are our priests in the effort to find the Way Back. The Holy Father says to priests: “In performing your ministry you must give an example of the sincere obedience that must be given inwardly and outwardly to the Magisterium of the Church” (H.V. n.28). He calls upon priests to teach the Church’s doctrine on life without compromise. He reminds priests that “refusal to compromise anything concerning the saving doctrine of Christ is an outstanding act of charity to souls” (ibid. n.29).

From the pulpit, in the confessional, in marriage preparation, in instructions and joining in the apostolate of Priests for Life, by supporting all pro-life initiatives, priests can play a major part in the rescue of the precious sons and daughters of God.

The Laity

Essential to the Way Back is the part of the laity. To them, God has given the gift of marriage with its unitive and procreative nature. They have the evangelical vocation of restoring the Culture of Life.

Forty years after Humanae Vitae more and more laity in Canada recognize the necessity of correcting the Winnipeg Statement. Among these dedicated labourers, too numerous to mention by name, are groups and individuals. Their prayers, petitions, articles, letters and lives will surely hasten the day when the truth about Life is universally taught and generally practised in Canada.

The Pro-Life Movement

A major factor in the Way Back is the pro-life movement.

As Dr. Charles Rice, professor of Notre Dame, said twenty years ago, the greatest mistake of the pro-life movement was to more or less ignore the contraceptive mentality. All the marches, conferences, books and articles of the pro-life apostolate are barren exercises unless the evil of contraception is confronted and overcome. This is not to say that the attack on abortion is to be neglected but that the cause of abortion be clearly recognized.

This does not mean that non-Catholics are to be excluded from the pro-life movement in Canada. It does mean that all pro-life fruitful members be opposed to contraception and sterilization. It must be recognized that contraception is not a Catholic evil but a universal evil, an intrinsic evil, and a violation of divine natural law to which all owe obedience. Abortion is a death-dealing symptom, the contraception mentality the cause. Death from the Pill or scalpel is the ultimate contraception. We note that Humanae Vitae is not addressed only to Catholics but to all of good will.

Spiritual Means

“Without Me you can do nothing” Christ tells us. Grace is essential to find the Way Back. Bishops need grace to rightly shepherd, priests to preach and counsel, teachers to teach, laity to live the Way of Life.

Those in the death grip of contraceptive practise need the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Through admission of guilt and confession souls can be diverted from the Path of Death to the Path of Life. Then comes Eucharistic devotion. This includes the Sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Communion and Eucharistic Adoration.

As prayer is essential to salvation, it is essential for the return to grace from the murder and prevention of children. Humane Vitae says to spouses “let them implore divine assistance by persevering prayer” (n.25). Let them call upon the actual graces to which they are entitled by their entrance into matrimony. “Christian married couples… must remember that their Christian vocation, which began at baptism, is further specified and reinforced by the sacrament of matrimony” (ibid.).

Step by step, inch by inch, by prayer, the Sacrament of Penance, practised by more and more Canadians, Canada can be brought to the glorious realisation of Humanae Vitae loved and lived.

End Notes

From dissent to disaster is the history of the rejection of Humanae Vitae in Canada. The Church in Canada is positioned for spiritual ruin, bleeding from the killing and prevention of the young. It is written in the Old Testament record of idolatry to Moloch in Psalm 106:

“They shed the blood of the innocent,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they offered to the idols of Canaan.”

Yet there is hope on this 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae. God’s grace, always sufficient, will be given mercifully and generously if there are faithful bishops, priests, religious, and laity prayerful and ready to make the sacrifices required. Then more and more spouses will be of the good will necessary to receive the Truth. To such spouses the Lord “entrusts the mission of making manifest to Man the holiness and indeed sweetness of the law that unites their mutual love and generous service closely to the love of God, the author of human life” (Humanae Vitae, n.25).

We must remember that Moses did not take his own laws to God on the holy mountain – God gave His laws to man. God does not say “You may do what seems right to you” but, out of loving concern: “Do this and you shall live in love forever.”

In Rome, in the Church of Gesu there is an ancient fresco to Our Lady of the Way. We pray that Our Lady of the Way may help Canada find its way back to the truth about Life and Love.

Dear Canadians, thank God for Humanae Vitae.