Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada (Part 2) by Msgr. Vincent Foy

Here is the second part of Msgr. Vincent Foy's new article "Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada." (See the first part here.) In the first part, Msgr. Foy explained the "primary importance of restoring Humanae Vitae" in Canada and gave an account of the dissent in the Canadian Church leading up to the Winnipeg Statement. In the second part, he exposes the heterodox nature and double speak of the Winnipeg Statement and the perpetuation of its errors in the CCCB Working Papers on Marriage and Family. He also treats of the spiritual means necessary to exterminate the "contraceptive mentality underlying the culture of death."


Note: Please see the sidebar for other articles by Msgr. Foy.

***

Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada

by Msgr. Vincent Foy

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Primary Importance of Restoring Humanae Vitae
3. Dissent

4. Contraception and Civil Law

5. The Winnipeg Statement

6. Double Talk or Double Think
7. The CCCB Working Papers on Marriage and the Family
8. Spiritual Means

9. Catholic Hospitals
10. The Homily
11. The Prenuptial Questionnaire
12. Catholic Groups and Societies
13. Sacrilegious Holy Communions
14. Seminaries
15. Bishops
16. End Note

***

Recovering Humanae Vitae in Canada

Part 2: "The Winnipeg Statement" to "Spiritual Means"


by Msgr. Vincent Foy


The Winnipeg Statement

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

The full analysis of the errors, double-talk and dissent of the Winnipeg Statement has yet to be written. The worst paragraph is n. 26. When I met Cardinal Pignedoli, former Apostolic delegate to Canada on September 27, 1968, he said to me “Do you not think paragraph 26 is the worst?” Indeed, it was. Here is the text: “Counsellors meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g. the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles or moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely, but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.” Thousands of times, couples have used this “killer paragraph” to justify their use of contraceptive Pills and devices, whether abortifacient or non-abortifacient.”

It is not surprising that Bishop Alexander Carter, President of the CCCB, admitted that the Statement was not a formal endorsement of the encyclical. Father Edward Sheridan SJ, one of the “periti” at Winnipeg, wrote: “The Statement contained no general profession of assent to the whole teaching of Human life; and nothing that could be interpreted as adding the local authority of the Canadian Hierarchy to that of the encyclical in general.” (Canadian Bishops on “Of Human Life”, by Rev. Edward Sheridan SJ, America, Oct, 19, 1968, p. 349). No wonder Douglas Roche wrote in the Western Catholic Reporter (Oct. 2, 1968): “The issue is over in Canada. Catholics are free to use contraceptives if their informed conscience so prompts them.”

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

Double Talk or Double Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Spiritual Means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Part 1: "Introduction" to "Contraception and Civil Law"

Part 3: "Catholic Hospitals" to "End Note"