Canada's Bishops Beguiled In The Wake Of Vatican II

In a previous post I covered the subject of a 1958 document produced by the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops, a pastoral letter entitled "The Family In Canada," wherein we see that the Church's teaching concerning contraception was being upheld and unabashedly promoted by the Bishops. Yet by 1968 we stand amazed, puzzling: What invasion of thought and spirit so beguiled these shepherds in that short span of years?

This statement by the Bishops deserves to be revisited in 2018 if for no other reason than to support the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. That encyclical remains "ground zero" for the current Catholic Church crisis since it served as a magnet for the heresy and hatred for tradition which was metastasizing in the Church in the wake of modernism. The vast rebellion that followed vented its fury on the person of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, laying waste to altar, liturgy and doctrine in order to beat into the ground all that was holy and true. The results have been catastrophic: a pervasive culture of sacrilege and profanation, measured daily in the multiple millions and never challenged by Canada's Bishops.  [SOURCE]

The letter appearing below was crafted by Monsignor Vincent Foy as a response to the article "Humanae Vitae Confusae" by Father Leo Walsh C.S.B., "professor emeritus of moral theology of the University of St. Michael’s College Faculty of Theology" in Toronto, Canada. Father Walsh is a member of the staff of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute. Msgr. Foy's letter explains much of what happened in the ten year span referenced above.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Father Leo Walsh and “Humanae Vitae Confusae”

by Monsignor Vincent N. Foy

In the September 2008 issue of “Bioethics Matters” is an article entitled “Humanae Vitae Confusae” by Father Leo Walsh, C.S.B.. It is written for the 40th Anniversary of the publication of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae” of July 25, 1968. Father Walsh, professor emeritus of moral theology of the University of St. Michael’s College Faculty of Theology, is a member of the staff of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute.

The article is well named. It succeeds in hiding the encyclical in a smog of questions and doubts. It considers Humanae Vitae from the aspect of problem rather than solution.

A Confusing Label

We are told that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is very weighty teaching, but not infallible. This opinion of Father Walsh is gratuitously asserted. There are other opinions.

Some have argued that the doctrine against contraception has been infallibly proclaimed. Notable in this regard is the monumental work of Father Ermengildo Lio, reportedly one of the authors of Humanae Vitae: “Humanae Vitae e Infallibilita.” He believes that the language of Humanae Vitae, invoking the authority of Christ meant that the Pope made a solemn definition of Church doctrine. Pope John Paul II expressed thanks for this book, which has been defended by others, e.g. Father Brian Harrison.

Many believe that, whether the doctrine of Humanae Vitae has been infallibly defined, it is infallibly taught. Perhaps the best presentation of this conclusion in English is “The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defence,” by John C. Ford, S.J.; Germain Grisez; Joseph Boyle, John Finnis and William E. May (Ignatius Press, 1988).

What is relevant is that the teaching of the Church against contraception bound the consciences of Catholics in past centuries regardless of the absence of modern insights. It binds today regardless of any particular theological label, whether it is infallibly defined, infallibly taught or authoritatively proclaimed by the ordinary magisterium. It binds because it is given to us by Peter’s successor with Christ’s authority (cf. Humanae Vitae, n. 6).

What is the duty of theologians on this matter? They are to give the example of loyal assent both internal and external to the Magisterium’s teaching in the areas of both dogma and morality (cf. the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, n. 110).

The Disconnect

As Father Walsh points out, there is a large disconnect between Church teaching on artificial birth control and the practice of Catholic couples. According to one survey, conducted by MacLeans magazine in 1993, 91% of Catholics approve of contraception. It is not likely that the statistics are any better today. Father Walsh also points out that there are far reaching consequences of this disconnect.

Why do so many Catholic couples act contrary to Church teaching? Fr. Walsh says there are different reasons. He proposes three:

1. “It may be that a couple has considered the whole question, has studied prayerfully the whole question, has studied prayerfully the teaching of the Church, has read theological opinion on the matter, and has come to the conclusion that the teaching is either wrong or incomplete.”

In all my pastoral experience I never met such a couple, and, if they do exist, they are very rare. They do not help explain the 90% disconnect.

2. “It may be that a couple has tried to live by the teaching but has found that they do not have the moral strength to do so.”

Such a couple apparently accepts the Church’s teaching, but do not use adequate means of grace. If so they are in sin. They do not explain the 90% disconnect.

3. “It may be that a couple has not thought much about the
matter at all. It is taken for granted that nowadays couples practise birth control. It is not a matter of morality.”

This may be for some a cause of disconnect, but it is a remote cause, not a proximate one and does not explain the disconnect.

The reason for the disconnect is not only that Church teaching was not generally taught, but that the teaching was undermined by silence, error and dissent. There was a massive betrayal of the Church, Pope and Catholics. Here we list only part of that betrayal in Canada.

Before the encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968

1. In 1964 the errors of Father Louis Janssens of Belgium, Fr. Schillebeeckx of Holland, and others spread like an Aids virus through academic circles of many countries, including Canada.

2. A book was published by Herder and Herder in 1964 called “Contraception and Holiness”. It presented itself as a “balanced and perceptive declaration of Christian dissent.” Among the contributors were three professors of St. Michael’s College in Toronto: Gregory Baum, O.S.A., Stanley Kutz, C.S.B., and Leslie Dewart.

3. At the third session of Vatican II on Oct. 29, 1964, Cardinal Leger of Montreal advocated that fecundity should be a duty pertaining to the state of matrimony as a whole rather than the individual act.

4. Gregory Baum was a catalyst of dissent in Canada and elsewhere, through interviews, tapes and articles. An interview with Gregory Baum was printed in the Toronto Globe and Mail for April 9, 1966. It was entitled “Catholics May Use Contraceptives Now.”

5. In some dioceses, such as Toronto, London, Ottawa and Sault Ste. Marie, confessional norms were given contrary to Church teaching.

After Humanae Vitae

1. After Humanae Vitae was published on July 24, 1968, Canadian papers contained scores of comments, most of them derogatory. Fr. Edward Sheridan, S.J., said: “It [Humanae Vitae] did not necessarily demand absolute obedience”. Gregory Baum said Catholics had the right to dissent.

2. In support of a group of dissenters based at St. Michael’s College, Toronto, Fr. Walter Principe, C.S.B., professor and writer for the Canadian Bishops, said: “For some Catholics the proper conduct of their family life can mean using other forms of birth control than the rhythm method” (Toronto Globe and Mail. Aug. 6, 1968).

3. On a CBC coast to coast television program on Aug. 18, 1968, Father Edward Sheridan S.J., Father Robert Crooker C.S.B., and Father Walter Principe C.S.B., attacked the encyclical.

4. In August 1968, Archbishop Plourde of Ottawa issued a pastoral statement. He said individuals have the right to “reach a judgement different from that of the Holy Father.”

5. Early in Sept., 1968 I spoke on the encyclical at a Serra Club meeting. I was cross-questioned with evident hostility by two priest-professors of St. Michael’s College.

6. Pressure groups sprang up calling for "freedom of conscience”. Among them were the Western Canadian Conference of Priests, the Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, Catholics in Dialogue, the Canadian Institute of Theology and 58 “intellectuals” of St. Francis Xavier University.

7. Fifteen directors of the departments at the CCCB signed a statement calling for a “Vatican II Approach.” They said that a large number of Canadian priests were agonizing “in acute crisis of conscience.” I never met one such priest.

The Winnipeg Statement and After

The Canadian bishops met at Winnipeg in September of 1968. In the name of the Holy Father in August 1968, Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State, had asked them to stand firm with the Holy Father in his presentation of Church teaching in Humanae Vitae. Instead, they issued a disastrous commentary called the Winnipeg Statement. They said that in some circumstances Catholic couples could be safely assured that “whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience” (n. 26).

A fair assessment of the Winnipeg Statement was given by Dale Francis of the U.S. newspaper Twin Circle on Oct. 29, 1968: “The practical consequence has been that it has been interpreted as virtually negating the Pope’s proscription of contraceptives.”

Thousands of Catholic couples have justified their use of contraceptives by referring to the Winnipeg Statement:

1. The Winnipeg Statement was carried around the world by many vehicles e.g. Time magazine, The Tablet, America, Commonweal and Catholic Mind. Bishop Bushwell of Pueblo cited the Canadian Bishops to support his thesis “Dissent Not Disloyalty” (Commonweal, Nov. 15, 1968).

2. Education was quickly infected. Two of the seven priests dismissed from St. John Vianney Seminary in Buffalo for dissent from Humanae Vitae were welcomed into St. Augustine’s Seminary in Toronto.

3. Douglas Roche, who was with the Western Catholic Reporter at the time of the Winnipeg meeting. He wrote a book entitled “The Catholic Revolution”. In the second edition, 1969, he quoted from the Winnipeg Statement to show “How dissent and loyalty can co-exist within Catholicism.” In truth, dissent is an act of profound disloyalty.

4. Perhaps the most damaging of all texts was “Christ Among Us” by Father Anthony Wilhelm, C.S.P.. I have seen stacks of this text in Canadian Catholics rectories. By the time Cardinal Ratzinger asked Bishop Gerety of Newark to withdraw his Imprimatur on Feb. 28, 1984, 1,500,000 copies had been sold throughout the world. From the time of its second edition, over 300,000 copies quoted the Winnipeg statement to support dissent from Humanae Vitae.

5. Other texts carried the life and soul-destroying Winnipeg message, e.g. “Married in the Lord” by Father Michael Prieur, “New Hope for Divorced Catholics” by Father Barry Brunsman, “Catholics Ask” by Father O’Shea, and the marriage preparation course “Mosaic”, published by Novalis.

6. In 1980 the CCCB published a working paper on Marriage and Family. It gave us 190 pages of a general plan to promote Faith “In and Through the Family”. There is no mention of Humanae Vitae. It depends largely on theological opinion, often dissenting, e.g. Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Fuchs, Boff, and others. The text confirms the Winnipeg Statement by recommending marriage preparation courses which confirm it e.g. “Mosaic” and “Good News for Married Love.”

7. In response to the synod on the Family, the CCCB published a Working Paper “Responsible Procreation”, in 1983. It refers to Familaris Consortio only once. It follows the syncretic approach of quoting from dissenting theologians e.g. Curran, Rahner, Shannon, H¬ring, as well as some orthodox sources. It creates an impression of uncertainty and confusion. It criticises that attitude which would make of the prohibition of contraception “a sort of article of faith in dogma so that there is an end to all discussion and private or public questioning.” In conclusion, it says “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).

8. Articles appeared in Catholic periodicals spreading the moral relativism of the Winnipeg Statement. Examples are: Humanae Vitae – Une question ouverte” (L’Eglise Canadienne, 11, 12, 1980) and “Aids, Condoms, and the Church” by Fr. Bela Somfai, S.J. (Compass, November, 1987).

9. While Humanae Vitae was attacked and more and more Catholics were contracepting, shepherds and pulpits were silent. Confessionals were deserted.

Much more could be added. I think one need look no further for the reason for the disconnect between Catholic teaching and Catholic practise – Catholic teaching was not taught. Because of the new defective catechism series, Come to the Father, Catholics did not have a solid foundation for their faith.

Conscience

In the treatment of conscience there is much that is confused and confusing in “Humanae Vitae Confusae”.

We are told that Canada’s bishops, from their first response to Humanae Vitae, rightly recognised the primacy of conscience. In fact, in their Winnipeg Statement of 1968 the Canadian Bishops wrongly affirmed the primacy of the subjective conscience, the root error of Protestantism. They said that in some circumstances couples could use those means of contraception which seemed right to them.

Vatican II was careful to avoid the error of the primacy of the subjective conscience. Cardinal Felici explained how an attempt to avoid the subjective primacy of conscience was made in the evolution of the text of Vatican II. The expression “conscience to be enlightened by the divine law” was replaced by the more precise “conscience to be conformed to the divine law” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 29, 1968, p.6).

We read in Vatican II: “When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral; aspect of any procedure – must be determined by objective standards – relying on this principle, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law” (Vatican II, The Church in the Modern World, n. 50). “Conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in light of the teaching authority of the Church” (ibid.).

Father Walsh tells us that a good conscience can be in error. If it is in error it is not a good conscience. Conscience is not a source of truth. As Msgr. Cormac Burke has said, truth is independent of conscience but conscience is not independent of truth. A good conscience is informed and then conformed. Otherwise the conscience is deformed, with the consequences inherent in objective evil.

A great theologian of the last century wrote: “It is nonsense for a Catholic to set up in opposition to the authority of the Encyclical (Humanae Vitae) the authority of his own personal conscience” (Cardinal P. Journet, “The Light of the Encyclical”, L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10, 1968, p. 10). It is nonsense, but still repeated, with disastrous results. Father Walsh recognises this when he says “Where erroneous conscience is widespread harm is widespread.” That is the situation today.

Confusion by hypothesis

A considerable part of the article is about hypothetical suppositions.

We are told of the negative effects if there is no intrinsic connection between the unitive and generative dimension of the act of intercourse. Some of these is that the claim that extra-marital relations (fornication and adultery) and homosexual genital expression are immoral cannot be easily maintained. There could be no argument from authority or from intrinsic reasons. Other consequences are detailed.

Other hypothetical questions are asked e.g. “Is the Church correct?” and “Might it be that the Church is indeed wrong about sexuality generally?” More questions are raised.

It is difficult to justify the raising of such hypothetical matters when the questions have already been answered by the Church with the authority of Christ. That was precisely the reason for Humanae Vitae. As the Pope said “We now intend by virtue of the mandate extended to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions” (Humanae Vitae n.6).

End note

In evaluating the article by Father Leo Walsh C.S.B. it is good to recall the words of Pope John Paul II, which leave no room for confusion. Speaking of the Church’s teaching against contraception he said: “It is not, in fact, a doctrine invented by man; it was stamped in the very nature of the human person by God the creator’s hand and confirmed by Him in revelation. Calling it into question, therefore, is equivalent to refusing God Himself the obedience of our intelligence” (Nov. 12, 1988).

Perhaps more relevant still are the words of Pope Paul VI to priests: “Your first task – especially in the case of those who teach moral theology – is to explain the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity” (Humanae Vitae n.25).

The Swift And Stunning Downfall Of The Catholic Faith In Canada

ChurchMilitant.TV does an in-depth investigation into the collapse of the Catholic Church in Canada at the hands of Bishops who betrayed the Faith and their flocks. If you are a premium subscriber you can see the full 70 minute+ report by going here.

The Best of Canada's Catholic Bishops: Actively Betraying The Faithful For Decades

Back in early March of this year Catholic theologian (and blogger) Dr. Colin Kerr announced that my blog Contra|Diction had been banned from his Society of Canadian Catholic Bloggers. I promptly left a comment on his blog posting and then issued my own short posting in response. Colin’s posting generated a good number of interesting comments, as did mine, and these comments taken as a whole provide both a range of insight as well as a share of ad hominem attack. I initially planned to publish a more detailed critique of Colin’s decision to oust my blog as well as of the confused rationale which he had expressed in his posting but I soon realized it simply would have consumed more time and energy than it was worth. It would have been quite unrealistic to expect that yet more argumentation could override his strong emotional connections to Archbishop Prendergast particularly, but also to Cardinal Collins.

Fast forward to last week when Vox Cantoris blog posted Pervert Priest and the Canadian bishops that covered him up, so-to-speak. The Vox links to a shocking post at Sylvia’s Site detailing the cover up in the 1960`s and 1970`s of infamous sexual predator Father John Sullivan by a host of Canadian Bishops. Go ahead and read the revolting details in order to appreciate the depravity and duplicity of the (Best) Bishops involved.

For most of 29 years that man – this wolf in sheep’s clothing, a child molester – was permitted to hear confessions, offer up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and continue to prey on innocent young boys.

Is it really possible that several Bishops participated in such a heinous cover-up? Yes indeed and not only several, but several very powerful Bishops, those who, at the time, were considered to be the best of Canada`s Bishops.

Bishop Alexander Carter was one of the influential Gang of Five, a group of Canadian bishops who, as I once said elsewhere,  were fast friends who wielded an inordinate influence  upon their fellow Canadian bishops and hence upon the face of Roman Catholicism in Canada and indeed upon the face of the nation period.

Would anyone dispute the claim that a great many good Catholics of that time period, much like Dr. Colin Kerr today, were delighted to count these men as exemplary stewards of God? Likely they would have defended them to the death, not being fully persuaded of the mystery of iniquity. Yet were these Bishops not deeply infected with an evil that led to immense suffering for many innocent persons? Imagine the scorn and abuse that might have been heaped upon the fellow Catholic who had the temerity in those days to suggest that these Bishops were complicit in protecting a priest who serial-raped young boys. Perhaps Sylvia’s site can provide us with just such an illustration?

Bishop Alexander Carter – and others – knew that Carter was a sexual predator, and, what did he/they do?  Nothing!  Well, no, not really nothing.  In truth, the bishop (s) enabled Sullivan.  It was, after all, thanks to Carter that Sullivan was permitted to continue to masquerade as a priest and continue his sacrilegious romp from one sanctuary to another, and, yes, it was thanks to the bishop(s) that parents throughout the diocese were wilfully deceived, children were wilfully placed at risk, – and Sullivan was free to rape the souls of countless other young boys. Sad to say, and I would suggest, not surprisingly, Sullivan did just that. Until 1979!

Read the full posting, see the list of Bishop`s names and do a little homework. Lo, many of these *best* Bishops were architects and supporters of the Winnipeg Statement! History has issued its verdict on that act of defiance, and now also on the cover-up surrounding Father Sullivan.

Could there be a more a cunning, scandalous, evil and depraved betrayal of the flock by the shepherds?  I am at a loss for words.

Incidentally, ask yourself, what is worse: the cover up of sexual abuse or the mass spiritual destruction of souls? (Be sure you answer that question before leaving this page.) Forty or fifty years ago, Bishops were covering up the perverse sins of priests; now they find it convenient to cover up the sins of Catholics who regularly practice intrinsically evil behaviours, believing and pretending there’s really nothing to see here. “Let’s move along now folks, nothing to see here.” The common thread though is a blatant disregard for the welfare of souls, a de facto denial of sin and evil as well as judgment for personal sin. The scandal extends to pseudo-catholics—like PM Justin Trudeau—who infect all strata of society and who, like a huge colony of ants, are busy incrementally dismantling every moral safeguard of society and the common good. As long as Bishops don’t expect or require Catholics to live like Catholics our nation will continue to disintegrate into chaos. Which then is the worse evil?

Bishops who are not actively promoting and defending the fullness of Catholic truth, along with correcting the grievous and pervasive errors of the day, are tolerating much greater evils that are not apparent to the eye. As part of a strategy to cover up for these evils such Bishops downplay or even ignore the concerns that the faithful bring repeatedly to the fore.

But didn’t these Bishops who enabled Fr. Sullivan appear to be sincere, dedicated and enthusiastic servants of the Lord? You betcha. Were they bad, devious, un-Christian people? I doubt anyone would characterize them as such, even their critics. Were they well loved and respected by many, many Catholics? Of course they were. Learn then a lesson here: Those who discreetly, or otherwise, disrespect and undermine the teaching and discipline of the Church do not come dressed in red costumes with horns and tails but appear rather as angels of light and servants of righteousness. Blinded by their pride and arrogance they are not always aware of their own treachery nor do they always recognize rebellion in their selective silence and omissions.

Would we—should we—pray for the downfall [scroll to the end of linked posting] of such men, the “best” pastors of the Church? I imagine the answer depends on whether we can admit to, or rather grasp, the depth of evil at work in our midst. Souls are being lost, the Faith is undermined, the nation is reeling, all due to sin and scandal while too many Bishops veritably preside over the meltdown. Certainly we ought to call first for the conversion [scroll to the end of linked posting] of such men so that the Church and our society might be saved from the devil’s worst plans. But how strongly can we condemn the wayward prelate while at the same time respecting his office?

St. Paul urged the Corinthians to judge those in the Church who were guilty of sin, indicating their responsibility to put away from among themselves the wicked person. He indicated they must “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” Surely if St. Paul could counsel the local parish to expel or excommunicate one of the brothers we may ask St. Joseph to intercede on our behalf, beseeching the Lord to convert the heart of a renegade or hireling Bishop, finally bringing to bear divine judgments of many kinds if necessary, or even the removal of said Bishop so that a worthy replacement might be had.

But shouldn’t we constrain ourselves in our struggle to see justice and order restored in the Church of Christ? Shouldn’t we come to grips with the fact that these Bishops—like all men—are not perfect, and that realistically any replacement is unlikely to be better and quite likely to be worse? GOD FORBID!! If we cannot envision and work with all our might towards a Church that is truly purged of known evil and made a holy instrument of God, then we may as well give up on our own personal call to holiness!

But again, does our condemnation constitute lack of reverence for these pastors of the Church?  Are we being presumptuous? Would we be guilty of an offense against charity? Would we be presenting a one-sided negative account of the matter? Would we be rushing to conclusions? Look at the example set by Jesus Christ Himself. These were exceedingly strong criticisms of the religious leaders of his day! Do any of the woes pronounced therein apply to the Bishops who shielded Father Sullivan? Do any of the woes apply to Bishops who consign millions of souls to hell because they fail to warn rank and file Catholics of their sinful behaviours and sacrilegious Communions? Do any of the woes apply to Bishops who neglect their duty to discipline public sinners who scandalize the faithful and corrupt the morals of a nation?

In fostering these great evils, i.e. confirming the faithful in their sin, obstinacy, heresy and sacrilege, the “best” Bishops are at one with the worst, and will suffer similar judgment with the worst if they do not return to the Lord.

Winnipeg Statement: Canadian Bishops, September 1968

Here's the text of the infamous "Winnipeg Statement" published two months after the release of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. Paragraphs #17, 25, 26 and 34 are considered problematic, with paragraph #26 taking center stage.

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

RELATED POSTING Amoris Laetitia Will Bolster Canadian Bishops’ False And Deadly Appeal To Conscience

Here's a sample of the thinking behind the Winnipeg Statement which was said to be "an honest pastoral attempt" to "maintain unity in the Canadian Church."

Supporters contend that the Canadian Bishops were merely trying to defend those who had not matured sufficiently in their faith, and that they were simply upholding the established doctrine expressed in Dignitatis humanae, the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom. They argue that it was this document which compelled the bishops "to support the need for personal freedom when dealing with the Church's rejection of artificial contraception... [and to insist] that married couples could only form their consciences in an atmosphere free of coercion." [Source]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADIAN BISHOPS' STATEMENT ON THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE''

Plenary Assembly, St. Boniface-Winnipeg

Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada
September 27, 1968

---

1. Pope Paul VI in his recent encyclical "On Human Life" has spoken on a profound human problem as is clearly evidenced by the immediate and universal reaction to his message. It is evident that he has written out of concern and love, and in a spirit of service to all mankind. Conscious of the current controversy and deep differences of opinion as to how to harmonize married love and the responsible transmission of life, we, the Canadian bishops, offer our help to the priests and Catholic people believing it to be their pastoral duty.

I - Solidarity with the Pope

2. We are in accord with the teaching of the Holy Father concerning the dignity of married life, and the necessity of a truly Christian relationship between conjugal love and responsible parenthood. We share the pastoral concern which has led him to offer counsel and direction in an area which, while controverted, could hardly be more important to human happiness.

3. By divine commission clarification of these difficult problems of morality is required from the teaching authority of the Church ⁽¹⁾. The Canadian Bishops will endeavor to discharge their obligation to the best of their ability. In this pursuit we are acting consistently with our recent submissions to the federal government on contraception, divorce and abortion, nor is there anything in those submissions which does not harmonize with the encyclical.

II - Solidarity with the Faithful

4. In the same spirit of solidarity we declare ourselves one with the People of God in the difficulties they experience in understanding, making their own, and living this teaching.

5. In accord with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the recent encyclical⁽²⁾ recognizes the nobility of conjugal love which is "uniquely expressed and perfected through the marital act" ⁽³⁾. Many married people experience a truly agonizing difficulty in reconciling the need to express conjugal love with the responsible transmission of human life. ⁽⁴⁾

6. This difficulty is recognized in deep sympathy and is shared by bishops and priests as counselors and confessors in their service of the faithful. We know that we are unable to provide easy answers to this difficult problem made more acute by the great variety of solutions proposed in an open society.

7. A clearer understanding of these problems and progress toward their solution will result from a common effort in dialogue, research and study on the part of all, laity, priests and bishops, guided by faith and sustained by grace. To this undertaking the Canadian bishops pledge themselves.

III - Christian Conscience and Divine Law

8. Of recent years many have entertained doubts about the validity of arguments proposed to forbid any positive intervention which would prevent the transmission of human life. As a result there have arisen opinions and practices contrary to traditional moral theology. Because of this many had been expecting official confirmation of their views. This helps to explain the negative reaction the encyclical received in many quarters. Many Catholics face a grave problem of conscience.

9. Christian theology regarding conscience has its roots in the teaching of St. Paul ⁽⁵⁾. This has been echoed in our day by Vatican II: "Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths." ⁽⁶⁾ "On his part man acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God for whom he was created" ⁽⁷⁾. The dignity of man consists precisely in his ability to achieve his fulfillment in God through the exercise of a knowing and free choice.

10. However this does not exempt a man from the responsibility of forming his conscience according to truly Christian values and principles. This implies a spirit of openness to the teaching of the church which is an essential aspect of the Christian's baptismal vocation. It likewise implies sound personal motivation free from selfishness and undue external pressure which are incompatible with the spirit of Christ. Nor will he succeed in this difficult task without the help of God. Man is prone to sin and evil and unless he humbly asks and gratefully receives the grace of God this basic freedom will inevitably lead to abuse.

IV - Teaching Office of the Church

11. Belief in the Church which is the prolongation of Christ in the world, belief in the Incarnation, demands a cheerful readiness to hear that Church to whose first apostles Christ said: "He who hears you hears me" ⁽⁸⁾. True freedom of conscience does not consist, then, in the freedom to do as one likes, but rather to do as a responsible conscience directs.

12. Vatican Council II applies this concept forcefully. Christians "Therefore must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself and should be submissive towards the Church's teaching office which authentically interprets that law in the light of the gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love and impels it towards truly human fulfillment." ⁽⁹⁾.

13. Today, the Holy Father has spoken on the question of morally acceptable means to harmonize conjugal love and responsible parenthood. Christians must examine in all honesty their reaction to what he has said.

14. The Church is competent to hand on the truth contained in the revealed word of God and to interpret its meaning. But its role is not limited to this function. In his pilgrimage to salvation, man achieves final happiness by all his human conduct and his whole moral life. Since the Church is man's guide in this pilgrimage, she is called upon to exercise her role as teacher, even in those matters which do not demand the absolute assent of faith.

15. Of this sort of teaching Vatican II wrote: "This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching service is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" ⁽¹⁰⁾.

16. It follows that those who have been commissioned by the Church to teach in her name will recognize their responsibility to refrain from public opposition to the encyclical; to do otherwise would compound confusion and be a source of scandal to God's people. However, this must not be interpreted as a restriction on the legitimate and recognized freedom of theologians to pursue loyally and conscientiously their research with a view to greater depth and clarity in the teaching of the Church.

17. It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine. In particular, the argumentation and rational foundation of the encyclical, which are only briefly indicated, have failed in some cases to win the assent of men of science, or indeed of some men of culture and education who share in the contemporary empirical and scientific mode of thought. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by contemporary man in understanding and appropriating some of the points of this encyclical, and we must make every effort to learn from the insights of Catholic scientists and intellectuals, who are of undoubted loyalty to Christian truth, to the Church and to the authority of the Holy See. Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.

18. The difficulties of this situation have been felt by the priests of the Church, and by many others. We have been requested to provide guidelines to assist them. This we will endeavor to accomplish in a subsequent document. We are conscious that continuing dialogue, study and reflection will be required by all members of the Church in order to meet as best we can the complexities and exigencies of the problem.

19. We point out that the particular norms which we may offer will prove of little value unless they are placed in the context of man's human and Christian vocation and all of the values of Christian marriage. This formation of conscience and this education in true love will be achieved only by a well balanced pastoral insistence upon the primary importance of love which is human, total, faithful and exclusive as well as generously faithful ⁽¹¹⁾.

V - Preliminary Pastoral Guidance

20. For the moment, in conformity with traditional Christian morality, we request priests and all who may be called to guide or counsel the consciences of others to give their attention to the following considerations.

21. The pastoral directives given by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical are inspired by a positive sacramental approach. The Eucharist is always the great expression of Christian love and union. Married couples will always find in this celebration a meeting place with the Lord which will never fail to strengthen their own mutual love. With regard to the sacrament of penance the spirit is one of encouragement both for penitents and confessor and avoids both extremes of laxity and rigorism.

22. The encyclical suggests an attitude towards the sacrament of penance which is at once less juridical, more pastoral and more respectful of persons. There is real concern for their growth, however slow at times, and for the hope of the future.

23. Confession should never be envisaged under the cloud of agonizing fear or severity. It should be an exercise in confidence and respect of consciences. Paul VI invited married couples to "....have recourse with humble perseverance to the mere; of God, which is poured forth in the Sacrament of Penance' ^(12). Confession is a meeting between a sincere conscience and Christ Our Lord who was "indeed intransigent with evil, but merciful towards individuals" ⁽¹³⁾

24. Such is the general atmosphere in which the confessor and counsellor must work. We complete the concept with a few more particular applications.

25. In the situation we described earlier in this statement (par. 17) the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fall in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical.

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

27. Good pastoral practice for other and perhaps more difficult cases will be developed in continuing communication among bishops, priests and laity, and in particular in the document we have promised to prepare. In the meantime we earnestly solicit the help of medical scientists and biologists in their research into human fertility. While it would be an illusion to hope for the solution of all human problems through scientific technology, such research can bring effective help to the alleviation and solution of problems of conscience in this area.

VI - Invitation to Social Pastoral Action

28. The whole world is conscious of the growing preoccupation with the social impact of all men's thoughts, words and actions. Sexuality in all its aspects is obviously an area of the greatest human and social impact. The norms and values which govern this so vital human concern merit the attention and cooperation of all. Our world evolves at a frightening rate, creating at once a vivid sense of unity and a set of conflicting forces which could destroy us.

29. This concern will be fruitful only if it leads all of us to recognize our true human worth in the possession of our inner powers by which we are distinctively ourselves with the full recognition of our complementary sexual differences on the physical, the psychological and the spiritual plane. Only in this manner will we achieve marriages that are truly unions of love in the service of life.

30. To this end there must be brought into play all the positive forces of the family, the school, the state, the Church. No one may stand aloof, nor are there really national boundaries in a matter of such universal application. With this in mind we call on all members of the Church to realize on every level from the very youngest to the various possibilities of adult education.

31. Without wishing to specify in detail we single out for special mention a few aspects which may have richer possibilities. We place first the dialogue and cooperation, which have been so encouraging, among all members of the Church and, through the ecumenical movement with other Churches.

32. We note with deep satisfaction the spread and strength of so many activities calculated to prepare for marriage or to deepen the appreciation of married persons of this sublime state. For example, marriage preparation courses, family apostolates, discussion groups, etc.

33. Educators, too, are to be commended for their growing attention to the question. Everywhere the problem of sex education and family life is being studied. And this education is happily being deepened by scientific research and diffused through the creative use of mass media. Nothing less than this mobilization of all human forces will suffice to meet the challenge of divisive and destructive forces which begin deep in the willful selfishness of man and inhibit the true expression of his love. We pledge ourselves to the pastoral priority of encouraging and promoting these programs whenever and wherever possible.

34. We conclude by asking all to pray fervently that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide his Church through all darkness and suffering. We, the People of God, cannot escape this hour of crisis but there is no reason to believe that it will create division and despair. The unity of the Church does not consist in a bland conformity in all ideas, but rather in a union of faith and heart, in submission to God's will and a humble but honest and ongoing search for the truth. That unity of love and faith is founded in Christ and as long as we are true to Him nothing can separate us. We stand in union with the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter, the sign and contributing cause of our unity with Christ and with one another. But this very union postulates such a love of the Church that we can do no less than to place all of our love and all of our intelligence at its service. If this sometimes means that in our desire to make the Church more intelligible and more beautiful 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. The great Cardinal Newman once wrote: "Lead kindly light amidst the encircling gloom." We believe that the Kindly Light will lead us to a greater understanding of the ways of God and the love of man.

FOOTNOTES

(1) On Human Life, n. 4 & 18
(2) On Human Life, n. 8
(3) The Church Today, n. 49
(4) The Church Today, n. 51
(5) Rom. 14:23 and I Cor. 10
(6) The Church Today, n. 16
(7) On Religious Freedom, n. 3; the Church Today, nn. 16, 17
(8) Luke 10:16 (9) Const. on the Church, n. 50
(10) Constitution on the Church, n. 25
(11) On Human Life, n. 9
(12) On Human Life, n. 25
(13) On Human Life, n. 29

Msgr. Foy To Catholic Bishops: Repudiate Contraception Or Lose Canada

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

98 year old Monsignor Vincent Foy, the longest serving Catholic priest in Canada, has been much in the news lately and has compiled notes from recent interviews. It’s a wonderfully direct diagnosis of the moral malady in Canada.

In a very short space he references everything from the Winnipeg Statement to sex education to Justin Trudeau to Islam.

1. What effect do you think the Winnipeg Statement had on Canada in the late ’60s and 1970s?

First of all, it was a major cause of the suicidal birth rate. It was also a major cause of the contraceptive mentality and the “slippery slope” of adultery, fornication, venereal diseases, homosexuality, AIDS, pornography, radical feminism, sterilization, violence, child abuse, abortion, disintegration of marriage, increase of divorce, corrupt sex education (such as the “Fully Alive” sex instruction program in schools), euthanasia and the catastrophic loss of faith and morals that I have written about. This has contributed to the decline in our economy. The error of the Winnipeg Statement is quoted often in marriage preparation courses, in the confessional etc.

2. What effect, if any, do you think the Winnipeg Statement is having on Canada and Canadian Catholics today?

Today we are suffering from the evil effects (some of which I mentioned above) of the Winnipeg Statement. Couples often say ‘We know the bishops allow us to use contraceptives.’ Likely they have never heard of the Winnipeg Statement as such.

3. After “Liberating Potential” was released in 2008, do you think there will ever be any political will in the CCCB to revisit Winnipeg a third time? (I believe it was revisited in ’69 too.)

I pray that the CCCB will have the courage to admit and retract their previous error. Perhaps the newly appointed bishops will have the courage to repair and stop the damage.

4. Why do you think it’s important that the CCCB repeal Winnipeg today, even though it’s been 45 years?

It is essential that the error of the Winnipeg Statement be corrected. As Dietrich Von Hildebrand, one of the best theologians of the twentieth century, said: it is essential not only to assert the truth; it is also necessary to correct errors. The CCCB is morally obligated to officially retract the Winnipeg Statement.

5. Recently Justin Trudeau, a prominent Catholic, publicly dissented from Church teaching on abortion. Do you think this is a consequence of the Winnipeg Statement? If yes, why? If not, why do you think some Catholics have gotten to a point where they feel so comfortable blatantly opposing Church teaching?

I think it is one of the effects of the Winnipeg Statement. Justin Trudeau’s views and policies are heretical and anti-Catholic.

6. How would you answer those that say, “We don’t need to repeal the Winnipeg Statement because we have Liberating Potential, and other texts, that offer Catholics sufficient teaching on life issues?”

Currently, over 80% of women of childbearing age are using contraception. There are six times as many abortions through contraceptive use as there are through surgical means. Liberating Potential is a positive affirmation of Humanae vitae. As well, Dietrich Von Hildebrand says, it is necessary not only to teach the truth; but also to correct error. The Winnipeg Statement has never been specifically repudiated. I am very edified that we have so many current bishops in Canada, who had nothing to do with the publishing of the Winnipeg Statement and who preach and fully support Humanae vitae.

7. If the Winnipeg Statement is repealed, do you think it would have an effect on Canadian Catholics? And if so, what form would that take and how long of a process do you see that as being?

Yes, if with the repeal the doctrine of Humanae vitae were preached from every pulpit on frequent occasions. A repeal would take the form of a specific acknowledgement of the error of the Winnipeg Statement by the CCCB. It would help if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would condemn the Winnipeg Statement by name. We know now that the heresy of Winnipeg Statement could not be repeated because the Holy See demands that any statement of a doctrinal nature by a bishops’ conference; must be approved by the Holy See. The Winnipeg Statement of course was and never will be approved by the Holy See. The Holy See speaks on behalf of the Pope to express the teaching of Christ and His Church.

8. Some Catholics today, such as Trudeau Jr., oppose Church teaching on contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. How does the Church change the hearts and minds of its members to better reflect the teachings of Humanae vitae, Veritatis Splendour, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc.?

By frequent teaching of the truth by bishops and priests.

9. Where do you see the Church in Canada in twenty years — as it relates to the core issues of abortion, contraception, and euthanasia — as it stands in contrast to the secular culture’s embrace of these social issues?

Unless contraceptive practice by the majority is overcome, the Church in Canada will continue to decline. Muslims will gradually attain ascendency in terms of population increase and political power. While Muslims may be against abortion, contraception and homosexual acts; the Koran condemns Christianity. Sharia law and anti-Christian persecution would lead to the closing of our churches. Already there are more mosques in France than there are churches. More children attend mosques than churches. However, in other places where there are true Christians, the Church is growing in numbers, for example, in Africa and parts of India and other parts of the Far East. Vocations to the priesthood are increasing worldwide.

Visit Msgr. Foy’s website posting here.