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

Sheep Separated From Goats at Synod Of Bishops Via Conscience Rights

This Synod has been designed by men behind the scenes to make a huge frontal assault on the sexual morality teaching of the Church. Those men are not motivated by charity or by a concern for the suffering of families. They are motivated by their consciences, which cannot allow them to remain hidden in their sins any longer.

March For Life Gives Cover for Charlatans

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

It’s been a signal week watching the intersection of religion and politics taking place. I’m referring specifically to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on so-called “gay” so-called “marriage” as well as Pope Francis’ encyclical “Laudato Si.” These two landmark events have left many traditional minded Christians feeling hopeless and apprehensive about the future.

Whether we recognize it or not the actions or inactions of the Successors of Christ’s Apostles have a predominant effect on the direction of world affairs and the human attainment of abundant living.

Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 18:18

In May past I attended the March For Life in Ottawa. For me it bordered on surreal. On the one hand a crowd of 25,000 protestors is immensely impressive. I’m normally used to only one protestor when I go out with my signage, so it was quite overwhelming to be swallowed up by an ocean of like-minded pro-lifers. On the other hand it’s an event which takes place only once a year in a nation comprised of about 35 million souls. About 23 million of these are Christians, comprising about 13 million self-identified Catholics and the remainder Protestants.

Even if we leave the Protestants (as well as an equal number of non-Christians) altogether out of the equation, a shocking picture begins to emerge. Catholic teaching affirms abortion to be nothing less than the premeditated murder of the most vulnerable and innocent members of Canadian society and that makes it to be an altogether heinous crime, all the more inconceivable when we reflect on the scale of its everyday practice in Canada. It seems a very poor annual showing indeed for a group representing 13 million people who are convinced that defenceless human beings are slaughtered daily in cities across Canada with the sanction of government. If you’ve got only one day per year to let your voice be heard by government, this year’s March For Life represents a pitiful yelp rather than a roaring stampede, statistically at least.

What explains this depressing and altogether inadequate display of indifference? What must the little victims of this Canada wide holocaust think of this insufferable national response?

Unquestionably, the answer lies with the moral character of our national leaders and the spiritual formation of their flocks. I focus on the Catholic leadership, specifically the Bishops, because they are ordained the salt (according to Christ Himself) of their society to accomplish the works of God, the prime directive being the salvation of souls and adherence to the laws and commands of Christ.

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. Matthew 5:13

During more than forty years of state sanctioned murder they have utterly failed to salt the consciences of their people with the commands of Christ and the teachings of His Church. They have thereby failed to salt society in righteousness and as a consequence failed also to protect the lives of the least of their brethren.

Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' Matthew 25:45

And yet, prolife organizers and marchers celebrate the few Bishops who show up at the March each year, showering them with respect and admiration for their bold stand for life. Do they deserve such praise?

I say, emphatically, “No” if they have proved themselves to be charlatans. And charlatans they are, quite possibly down to the last man. These are the men who have overseen the rise of a false religion these last fifty years, replacing the one true Faith with a counterfeit and schismatic version, one based upon their “magical” version of the Eucharist, rather than upon the mystery of the Eucharist as defined by Mother Church.

Thanks to the negligence, or perhaps simply the spiritual darkness, of too many Canadian Bishops, regardless of the moral conduct or spiritual disposition of vast numbers of renegade "Catholics", attendance at Mass and mere reception of Holy Communion is assumed to magically confer absolution for even the gravest sins and satisfy all of God's significant imperatives for the Catholic. [Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada]

This is a shocking statement indeed, but let me be clear: In saying this I make no attack upon the Eucharist. It is the Bishops whose actions bring not only disgrace but violence as well to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. If indeed the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life—which it is—then any perversion or corruption of it constitutes the most egregious and contemptible of offences.

Bishops have failed to warn or teach sinners to be circumspect in regard to their spiritual disposition before reception of Holy Communion. As a natural consequence, or at least simultaneously, the sacrament of Confession has “conveniently” fallen into disuse.

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”. I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”. ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Yes, in Canada, with few exceptions, any and all may join the Communion line and receive the King of Kings regardless of the objective condition of their souls. No counsel is provided to protect those in grave sin from God’s judgment or our Lord Jesus Christ from sacrilege and profanation. Nor is any effort made by clergy to curb this outrage; no timely mention or definition of grave (mortal) sin is provided at the correct moment during the Mass, either by oral or written word. In too many cases no mention of grave sin occurs in any Church setting whatever. Conveniently, no conscience can be pricked by sin in a vacuum.

It seems an unbelievable failure but simple observation confirms the truth. In practice, being baptized and showing up at Mass appear to be the all-sufficient criteria for reception of the Eucharist. Clearly, the Bishops do not believe in warning the sinner of danger, perhaps because they themselves believe there is no danger. Whatever the reason, this is a dangerous denial of the truth of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Because the Bishops make no distinction in sin it means no one has to judge what is serious sin and what is not. And since all moral judgments, and especially judgments respecting sin, are suspended, Bishops and Priests are freed entirely from having to deal with the messy subject of personal sins, contraception particularly.

What are some of the consequences for such thinking? If sin is ultimately not an obstacle to Holy Communion wouldn’t everybody get to go to heaven? If the right to Communion ultimately depends on my good intentions or my claim to be Catholic or my "clear" conscience then it does not depend on my obedience to Christ: “If ye love me keep my commandments.” Ultimately then it must not depend on any objective criteria (e.g. the Magisterium) outside of myself. Such dangerous thinking is a heresy and equivalent to the Protestant practice of “private judgment.” Imagine the consequences to a local community when a parish contributes a regular diet of such pseudo-catholic leaven.

On rare occasions when Bishops do highlight and provide guidelines for Confession, only a short form examination of conscience is provided and such guidelines conveniently ignore some of the most profound and pervasive sins of the day, most especially the practice of contraception, but also divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, sodomy, pornography, etc. Once again, Catholics are left to assume the best about the condition of their souls because their shepherds raise no red flags at all. This is spiritual formation by omission and neglect and it is downright evil.

These charlatans are content to remain silent while they watch Catholics rise from their seats in wave after wave, knowing full well that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a great many of them who are living in an objective state of mortal sin due to regular participation in intrinsically evil behaviour and perversions are about to partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to consider these men anything but wolves and hirelings. It is impossible to believe that any priest in union with the Holy Trinity and witnessing such an imminent sacrilege could be anything other than horrified and compelled immediately to shout out a warning to all present, even if so doing put his life at risk. Yet Mass after Mass, day after day, year after year, Bishops and their Priests remain silent while “he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself…” A few wise words at the right moment could save the souls of countless Catholics yet traitorous tongues remain silent. The only explanation for such behaviour is that unbelief and the lies of demons have overtaken the hearts of these unworthy leaders.

Certainly Catholic Bishops have no right whatsoever, by design or default, to engineer such repeated abuse and desecration of the Eucharist. But they certainly do have a duty to protect the Eucharist at every opportunity. May we defend their actions with the argument for prudential judgment? Not unless we can also justify contempt for Jesus Christ and hatred towards fellow human beings. Such an argument would be an obfuscation and entirely disingenuous.  Indeed, God calls upon all men to practice prudence particularly in the weightier decisions they are called upon to make. I think most all Catholics are willing to, and in fact do, give their clergy the benefit of the doubt in this regard. However in the name of prudential judgment Bishops simply do not have the freedom to deny or distort Catholic teaching or Canon law.

Shockingly these pseudo-catholic leaders persist in an adversarial relationship with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and with much of Catholic tradition) and it suits their pick-and-choose fashion to allow the covers of that priceless book to gather as much dust as possible. In the name of “conscience” and “kindness” they prefer to embrace “alternate views” and “more nuanced” teachings on many matters treated by the Catechism. This may explain why you’ve probably never heard the Catechism referenced in a homily by a priest or Bishop or never actually seen a copy of the Catechism lying about your Church building. If, perchance, any of our current hierarchy in Canada are innocent of the charges of heresy they will surely find hell to be only very slightly cooler than their slightly more evil brethren because not one of them to my knowledge has summoned the courage to break ranks and warn sinners accordingly or defend the Eucharist from regular desecration. On the other hand, when an orthodox voice is raised the Bishops act quickly to silence the truth when they have the power to do so.   

Strictly on the basis of such criminal activity as described, the Bishops of Canada are guilty of a gross perversion of the true Catholic faith and have corrupted their heavenly calling as Successors of the Apostles.

This grave misrepresentation of the Catholic faith not only dishonors faithful Catholics but scandalizes the entire Christian community in Canada, many of whom are forced to conclude that Catholicism is but another cultish enemy of the true Christian faith.

Faithful Catholics—and by that term I mean those Catholics whose aim is to live fully in the light of the Magisterium, i.e. the teachings of Christ—may not fully appreciate the scandalous effects that the lifestyles of renegade Catholics have upon other serious minded Christians. When I refer to “serious minded” I mean those that believe in a conversion experience with Christ and who treat sin as the very serious issue their tradition demands. Generally speaking these Christians would self describe as Evangelicals.

Why then would such Christians see the Catholic faith as a cultish enemy? Because they immediately recognize that the pseudo-catholic cult sustained by the Bishops is a misrepresentation of the Christian concepts of sin and grace. Sin has been turned on its head since the nature and consequences of sin are made to be of little significance. God’s judgment for sin was the death of His sinless Son yet Catholics may approach and commune with Christ regardless of sin’s mark upon the soul. Grace is cheapened and personal accountability washes away in this antinomian perversion. Instead of a Christian’s maturing hatred for sin there is an increased tolerance for sin. Ungodly, even devilish behaviour, is rewarded with the blessing of God through affirmation of the Bishops. The Christian’s call to constant conversion and to perfection is short circuited. The line between good and evil, heaven and hell is hopelessly blurred.

In fact, the Bishops have unleashed upon Canada a formidable army of pseudo-catholic renegades, missionaries of a parallel church, sending them into every corner and level of society, leavening Canada with a worldview antithetical to the Gospel and to the common good. Tragically these misguided and confused souls, including politicians, lawyers, professors, educators, etc. do tremendous damage to society while being confirmed in their actions by a lifetime of "faithfully" receiving the Holy Eucharist. In concert with the dissenting, heretical Bishops of our day, these renegade “catholics” have been on the front lines for decades foisting legal recognition of divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality and same sex “marriage” upon the rest of society.

Thus have the Bishops shown a callous disregard for the souls under their care and an entire nation has been led astray by the example of renegade Catholics who, though largely ignorant of the Moral Law of God, have advanced to prominent roles and led the charge to secularize Canadian society. The salt has become tasteless. “It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.” Our Bishops have entirely disqualified themselves from ministry and ought to resign immediately.

Granted the Bishops were hard hit by the priestly sex abuse scandals. No doubt many of them feel that they have lost their moral authority. But that is no reason or excuse whatever for abdication or compromising their role and responsibility as Successors of Christ. Leading their flocks to the abyss of hell is a far greater crime than even the sexual abuse of minors. Govern, teach, and sanctify as ordained by God or RESIGN and make way for worthy bishops.

This massive scandal exposes a grave flaw also in the thinking and strategies of the pro-life movement in Canada. The “pro-life” cause is, and always has been, an integral component of a Christian defense of the dignity and rights of all human beings and this movement is centred, not in the laity, but in the calling of the Apostles to teach and preach the whole counsel of God. The laity courageously picked it up when Bishops and their Priests laid it down yet it is a work which cannot be successful in any significant measure under the primary leadership of laity. I believe time has borne out this truth. It is past time for laity to channel their outrage not only at fellow Canadians on Parliament Hill once a year but every day in front of chanceries and cathedrals throughout our nation insisting:

EITHER…

that Bishops confess their sins, adhere in word and practice completely to the Oath of Fidelity, remain open to the judgment of laity in this regard, and undertake a drastic change of program in catechesis aimed at spiritual formation of the faithful in total conformity with the Church's teaching,

OR…

RESIGN.              

Bishops must (re)discover that the laity are qualified to speak in this area and that Bishops will be held responsible for their failures and infidelities (and not only by a blogger here and there on the Internet). Ideally, some body of laity must serve as a watchdog to the Bishops; a group that could muster significant credibility and one that has one or more Bishops on side. This is a crucial strategy for pro-lifers and Catholic laity in general and they must lock arms only with Bishops who prove themselves to be authentic Apostles of Christ. “Nice guy” Bishops who are willing once a year to accept accolades for showing up at a March for Life while constantly failing in their duties throughout the year must not be given a platform.  

_____________________________________________

Some related postings from Contra|Diction blog:

In Darkest Canada And The Way Out

Canada’s Bishops Fiddle While Justin’s Star Rises

More Fallout In Canada From Evils Of Contraception

Is Cardinal Collins Admitting That Humanae Vitae Is Being Ignored In Toronto?

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

New Uprising Of Faith For Archdiocese Of St. John’s?

What (Unworthy) Catholic Bishops Fear Most

What Catholic Bishop Is Watching Over Justin Trudeau’s Soul?

Ye Shall Judge Angels

Local Women Who Run Baby Killing Centre Received Eucharist At St. Teresa's Parish

Justin Trudeau Denies The Role Of Conscience

 

Heresies Associated With Magisterial Teaching On Contraception Final in 8 Part Series

So far in the Series entitled "On the Intrinsic Evil of Contraception" I have posted seven of the better articles available on this subject. See the entire list of postings below.

My final posting in the series will be an article by Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator. Note that this author has several other brief articles elaborating further on the theme of Contraception and Heresy. The relevant links are provided at the end of the article and the reader is encouraged to read these important texts.

Entire List of Postings "On the Intrinsic Evil of Contraception" 

1.        The Catholic Tradition on the Morality of Contraception 

2.        Children Of The Reformation: A Short and Surprising History of Protestantism and Contraception 

3.        Is Contraception Gravely Sinful Matter? 

4.       Bishop’s Letter To Catholic Couples and Physicians on Contraception 

5.        Humanae Vitae: Ground Zero For Our Modern Contraceptive Society Part 5 of a Series 

6.        Canada’s Bishops Reject Humanae Vitae: 40 Years After The Disaster Part 6 of a Series 

7.       Fifty Reasons Why The Winnipeg Statement Should be Recalled Part 7 of a Series 

8.       Heresies Associated With Magisterial Teaching OnContraception Final in 8 Part Series

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

Contraception and Heresy Part 1

By Ronald L. Conte Jr.,

The More Common Heresies

Pope Benedict XVI's recent brief comments on condoms, excerpted from a book-length interview by a journalist, did not change the teaching of the Magisterium on contraception. However, the avalanche of misinformation in the secular news media about those comments did prompt public statements and discussion from many members of the Church. And what we learned was that many Catholics, even some priests and theologians, hold heretical beliefs on contraception.

Unfortunately, certain heresies pertaining to contraception are thriving among Catholics today. Each of these heresies denies, in one aspect or another, the definitive moral teaching of the Magisterium on contraception. This article will review and refute each of those heresies on contraception.

1. Heresy: That The Use Of Contraception Is Not Immoral.

The most common heretical claim on the subject of contraception is simply a complete denial that contraception is immoral. Many persons who call themselves Catholic do not believe contraception is a sin. Such persons usually understand, and even openly state, that the Church teaches the immorality of contraception, but they have knowingly rejected this teaching. This knowing choice to reject the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on an important matter of morality is formal heresy.

To the contrary, the Magisterium teaches that contraception is immoral:

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

2. Heresy: That The Morality Of The Use Of Contraception Is Subject To The Judgment Of The Individual, His Conscience, And His Confessor.

This claim asserts that the use of contraception is not immoral, if the individual is sincere in judging that it is moral, or if the confessor of the individual claims that the use of contraception is merely a matter of conscience and personal judgment.

To the contrary, the magisterial document instructing confessors on the subject of contraception states: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable." (Vademecum for confessors, n. 4).

Definitive and irreformable teachings of the Magisterium are binding on the conscience of the Catholic Christian believer, since conscience must be formed in the light of Church teaching.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good." (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 38.)

Second Vatican Council: "In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience." (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience." (CCC, n. 1751)

A sincere conscience seeks and finds moral truth, which is an objective reality, not merely a subjective judgment. Catholic Christians are obliged by the moral law to believe the teachings of the Church on morality and to act in accord with those teachings.

The other forms of heresy on contraception are more complex, but in some ways more harmful. For the faithful of the Church know that they must accept the teaching of the Church against contraception; they know that conscience cannot overrule the teaching of Christ through His Church. But some persons are misleading the faithful with false claims about the content and meaning of the Church's teaching against contraception. They deceive the faithful into thinking that contraception might be moral, depending on intention or circumstances. And they claim that this grave error is the teaching of the Church, or that it is at least a tenable opinion, one not contradicted by the teaching of the Church.

3. Heresy: That Contraception, While Immoral, Is Not Intrinsically Evil.

This heresy seems to accept the teaching of the Magisterium that contraception is immoral, but then distorts and misinterprets that teaching so as to claim that contraception is not intrinsically evil (i.e. inherently disordered, by the very nature of the act).

To the contrary, the Magisterium definitively teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Pontifical Council for the Family: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life." (Vademecum for Confessors, n. 4)

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (Casti Connubii, n. 54)

Pope Pius XII: "Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no 'indication' or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one." (Address to Midwives)

Pope Paul VI: "Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong." (Humanae Vitae, n. 14)

Compendium of the Catechism: "What are immoral means of birth control? Every action -- for example, direct sterilization or contraception -- is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation." (Compendium, n. 498)

Cardinal Stafford: "the unitive and procreative meanings of marriage cannot be separated. Consequently, to deprive a conjugal act deliberately of its fertility is intrinsically wrong." (Francis Cardinal Stafford, Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, speech to American Academy of Fertilitycare Professionals, 11 June 2008)

Pope John Paul II: "This is the reason for the intrinsic unlawfulness of contraception: it introduces a substantial limitation into this reciprocal giving, breaking that 'inseparable connection' between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive and the procreative, which, as Pope Paul VI pointed out, are written by God himself into the nature of the human being (n. 12)." (Speeches, 27 Feb. 1998)

Pope John Paul II: "With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: 'Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general'." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

Notice that this teaching is presented in different ways, with variations in terminology, but as one and the same position definitively to be held. Intrinsically evil acts are also called intrinsically immoral, intrinsically wrong, intrinsically unlawful (under the eternal moral law), intrinsically against nature (since natural law is an expression of the eternal moral law), and by their very nature contrary to the moral order. All these expressions from magisterial documents prove that the Magisterium teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.

It is a heresy to claim that contraception is not intrinsically evil, i.e. that it is not intrinsically immoral, by the very nature of the act itself.

4. Heresy: That Contraception, While Intrinsically Evil, Is Not Always Immoral Regardless Of Intention Or Circumstances; In Other Words, That Contraception Is Both Intrinsically Evil And Yet Sometimes Justified By Intention, Or By Circumstances.

This self-contradictory heresy claims to accept the teaching of the Magisterium against contraception in its entirety, believing that contraception is not only immoral, but intrinsically immoral. And yet the claim is added that somehow contraception can become moral, depending on intention and circumstances.

To the contrary, the Magisterium clearly and definitively teaches that when an act is intrinsically evil, that act is always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (CCC, n. 1756)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (CCC, n. 2399).

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good." (Casti Connubii, n. 54.)

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

Pope John Paul II: "In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture…. If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. 'As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?'." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

Neither can intention or circumstances transform an act that is intrinsically evil into another type of act, one that is moral or good.

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

There are three fonts of morality:
(1) intention (the intended end, purpose, reason, or motive of the person in choosing the act)
(2) moral object (an end, in terms of morality, toward which the act itself, by its very nature, is inherently ordered)
(3) circumstances (especially the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences of the chosen act)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen; the end in view or the intention; the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the 'sources,' or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts." (CCC, n. 1750.)

Compendium of the Catechism: "The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences." (Compendium, n. 367)

USCCB Catechism: "Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act.... All three aspects must be good -- the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances -- in order to have a morally good act." (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.)

In order to be moral, each and every knowingly chosen act must have three good fonts: a good intention, a good moral object, and good consequences which outweigh any bad consequences. If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is immoral. Every act with an evil moral object is intrinsically evil. If the moral object is evil, then the other two fonts, intention and circumstances, cannot cause the act to become moral because all three fonts must be good "in order to have a morally good act".

Furthermore, when an act is intrinsically evil, it is immoral by the very nature of the act, in and of itself. The claim that intention or circumstances can change an intrinsically evil into a moral act is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium. This claim has the effect of nullifying the teaching of the Magisterium that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention and circumstances.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances. To deny this truth is to commit a heresy that applies not only to the subject of contraception, but to the eternal moral law in general. For many different types of acts are intrinsically evil. The claim that a contraceptive act can be intrinsically evil, and yet still be justified by intention or circumstance, necessarily implies that all other intrinsically evil acts can be justified by intention or circumstances. And this is a very severe heresy indeed.

How could any Catholic Christian believe that certain types of grave sins, such as murder, abortion, genocide, rape, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, etc., could ever be moral? Veritatis Splendor was written by Pope John Paul II in order to refute a common heresy among Catholic moral theologians which claims that no type of act is always immoral. This position was used to nullify the teaching of the Magisterium against contraception, abortion, and various grave sexual sins. And yet, many years after Veritatis Splendor, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and other magisterial documents were published, so that the magisterial teaching on intrinsic evil became ever more clear, many Catholics, including some priests and theologians, continue to claim that certain intrinsically evil acts are not always immoral.


[More on Contraception and Heresy:  Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 ]

For more on the topic of contraception, see chapter 22, 'Abortion and Contraception,' in Ronald Conte Jr.’s book: The Catechism of Catholic Ethics

FLASHBACK:The Hypocrisy of Pleasure Ethics

Community Editorial for The Telegram May 22, 2008
____________________________

Recently, a rare combination of shock and righteous indignation overtook us in our living rooms when news of a raid on a Texas polygamist compound hit the TV screens. Why the outrage? Some of the (older) husbands were suspected of taking for themselves teenage girls as new wives.

State prosecutors justified the extreme family disruptions and their war-like intervention in terms of rescuing brainwashed and coerced teenage girls and declared their actions to "be about child sexual abuse and our commitment to protect children."

So much for coherence and consistency in our present society.

While Texas authorities were invading a well ordered community in which, some argued, the vast majority of adults (older teen aged girls included) freely consented to live and remain, they seemed to forget that 60% of girls in America who had sex before age 15 were coerced by males an average of six years their senior. And that more than two-thirds of births to teenage girls were fathered by adult men age 20 or older. If the numbers in Canada are only half of those in the US, it is indeed a shocking picture of child sexual abuse arising from the mantra of "choice" in sexual matters.

Are the mothers involved being arrested or losing custody of their children because of this kind of sexual activity?  Is there even a call from society—more especially the women's rights groups—to track down and prosecute the perpetrators of such abuse? Hardly. To put it mildly, our society regularly turns a blind eye to such sexual impropriety.

I point out the blatant hypocrisy of the Texas incident in order to draw attention to our confused and dangerous "pleasure ethics." No, I was not trying to defend polygamy. Current laws which proscribe polygamy are based on solid rationale and ought to be strictly enforced for the common good of society.

We were right as a society to be aghast at the abuses inherent in polygamy. To be consistent and rational, however, our outrage can be justified only if we ourselves abide by and uphold Christian marriage in its fullness. In part, this standard dictates that sexual relations take place exclusively within marriage and be open to the gift of life (no contraception) and that the marriage bond may be broken only by the death of either man or woman.

Even from a "natural," atheistic and Darwinian point of view, no other arrangement between the human sexes is better geared to the survival and successful propagation of our species than Christian marriage. Furthermore, we can demonstrate how well this formula of man/woman union is attuned to nature by observing that HIV/AIDS and all other forms of STD's would surely be eradicated within a generation or two through its strict and exclusive practice.

Many non-Christian, religious cultures and prophets throughout history have also come, through observation and reason, to the same conclusions and have restricted sexual choices accordingly for the good of society. However, no prophet of God has been more instrumental in defining for us the purpose and limits of divine marriage than Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour of the world.

But "pleasure ethics" draws different conclusions. Inside of asking, "What is good?" we are overtaken by "What feels good?" Instead of focusing on moral standards which constrain our pleasures by reminding us of what's right and good, our "choice" is the selfish path of our own desires—with devastating consequences personally, socially and spiritually.