After Fr. Michael Prieur, now Fr. Bill Ryan.

In the October 2005 issue, Msgr. Vincent Foy commented on Fr. Michael Prieur's defence of the 1968 Winnipeg Statement. No sooner done than it became necessary to correct Fr. Bill Ryan in his historical survey of the immediate post-Vatican II period which appeared in several Canadian Catholic weeklies in the fall of 2005. Fr. Ryan does not seem to have read anything Msgr. Foy has written on the subject over the last 30 years.--Editor

Fr. Bill Ryan, S.J., & the Winnipeg Statement

Fr. Bill Ryan, S.J. has a distinguished record as Superior, writer, lecturer, and defender of justice and ethics in politics. He was General Secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) from 1984 to 1990. Recently, to mark the fortieth anniversary of the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes--The Church in the Modern World--he gave a lecture in Rome on how that Constitution shaped the Church in Canada. That lecture has been adapted to a four-part article which appeared in the Catholic Register (Toronto), with reprints in the Prairie Messenger (Saskatchewan) and the Atlantic Catholic (Antigonish, N.S.).

In the Catholic Register of September 18, 2005, Fr. Ryan, in the context of Gaudium et spes, writes approvingly of the Winnipeg Statement (W.S.), the Canadian Bishops' commentary on the encyclical Humanae vitae (H.V.). His evaluation, unfortunately, is defective and erroneous. I consider his remarks point by point.

The reaction of Pope Paul VI to the Winnipeg Statement

In the Catholic Register article, under a picture of Pope Paul VI, there is this quote from Father Ryan:

"Canada's Bishops were heartened when Pope Paul VI took cognizance of their statement on artificial contraception 'with satisfaction'."

The presumption is that Pope Paul VI approved of the Winnipeg Statement (issued by the Canadian Bishops in September 1968 following their plenary meeting in Winnipeg).

Like biblical texts, the words "with satisfaction" should be considered in context. Here is that context:

We do not know what the Holy Father said. The message came from the Secretary of State. We do not even know what the Secretary of State said. We have the message of the Apostolic Delegate referring to a message from the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, in an open letter ordered to be given me by hand by my Archbishop after it had passed open through the hands of the Apostolic Delegate, thanked me for a critique I wrote of the W.S. That critique was highly critical of the WS. and was written at the request of Cardinal O'Boyle for the American Bishops. Cardinal Cicognani told me that the Holy Father added his thanks.

The Secretariat of State, although it approved of some other national statements, refused to permit the printing of the W.S. in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper. The editor, Fr. Lambert Greenan, O.P., did not hesitate to tell a complaining Canadian bishop that the WS. was not printed because it was a disgrace.

The Holy Father did not confront other hierarchies that authored defective Statements. He chose to uphold the encyclical by constant repetition of the teaching of H.V., and by having outstanding theologians of the calibre of Cardinal Charles Journet write supporting articles in L'Osservatore Romano. In his last public homily in St Peter's in June of 1978, referring to H.V., the Pope repeated three times, "I did not betray the truth." I was present for that homily.

All of this leads to the conclusion that the words of the Apostolic Delegate were a mere diplomatic acknowledgement.

Gaudium et spes and the W.S.

Fr. Ryan says, "In their carefully prepared public response they (the bishops) referred to the teaching of Gaudium et spes six times to support their own position."

Actually, Gaudium et spes is referred to four times in the footnotes of the W.S. None of these references supports their position in allowing contraception. They failed to refer to the two passages which refer to this subject. Here they are:

Paragraph 50: "Married people should realize that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience--and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law."

Paragraph 51: "In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods contrary to the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of divine law."

In addition, a footnote reaffirms the teaching of Pope Pius XI in the 1930 encyclical Casti connubii, and the allocution of Pope Pius XII to Italian midwives of October 29th, 1951, in which contraception is unequivocally condemned. In this allocution the Pope affirms the irrevocability of Casti connubii.

The "theological experts" at Winnipeg

Fr. Ryan tells us that the bishops formulated their Statement with the help of theological experts.

The so-called "periti" or experts at Winnipeg were Fr. Edward Sheridan, S.J., Fr. Andre Naud and Fr. Charles St. Onge. Also consulted was Fr. Ora McManus of the Western Priests Association. He was encouraged in dissent by a letter from Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J.

Bernard Daly, Director of the CCCB English section of the Family Life Bureau brought a petition from all the Offices of the CCCB calling for "Freedom of Conscience" in the matter of contraception. All of the consultors were dissenters from H.V. Surely the first qualification for a theological expert is fidelity to the Magisterium. By their dissent the "experts" placed themselves above the Pope, an intolerable theological position.

Noticeably absent at Winnipeg were any heads of Canada's matrimonial tribunals. They were best qualified to testify concerning the effects of the contraceptive mentality on family life.

The "Unanimity" of the Bishops at Winnipeg

We read in Ft. Ryan's paper that at the end of the Winnipeg Conference the bishops "took their final vote, an almost unanimous vote with none negative and one abstention." This is an inaccurate account.

Bishop Alexander Carter tells us that the Statement was voted on section by section and that there were six negative votes on one section (cf. Love Kindness! The Social Teaching of the Canadian Catholic Bishops, the Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice, 1991, p. 153). That section was entitled "Preliminary Pastoral Guidance" and contained the infamous paragraph 26, permitting contraception in some circumstances.

The negative votes came from Archbishop Routhier of Grouard-McLennan, Archbishop Wilhelm of Kingston, Bishop Ryan of Hamilton, Bishop O'Neill of Grand Falls, Bishop Morin of Prince Albert and Bishop Carney (later Archbishop) of Vancouver. After the meeting, at which they were not present, retired Bishop Webster of Peterborough and retired Archbishop Sullivan of Kingston also expressed disagreement with the Statement.

Midway during the meeting, bishops comprising the theological commission voted 8 to 3 to include in the final report support for the teaching of Pope Paul VI on conjugal love and responsible parenthood. The consultors were greatly agitated and, backed by Bishop Remi de Roo, Chairman of the theological commission, called for "freedom of conscience." He made an impassioned plea to the whole assembly: "Should they not prefer the unanimous opinion of the consultors to the split decision of the bishops' theological commission?" When a vote was taken, the position of Bishop Remi de Roo and the consultors carried by one vote.

Many bishops at Winnipeg had misgivings. To assess their true freedom, the following circumstances should be kept in mind:

They were faced with a solid phalanx of dissenting consultors.

The controlling bishops were dissenters. Bishop Alexander Carter (Sault Ste. Marie), Bishop Emmett Carter (London), Archbishop Pocock (Toronto), and Archbishop Plourde (Ottawa) had all given prior erroneous confessional directives, unfitting many of their priests for hearing confessions. They looked on the encyclical as a serious "problem." They had been listening to rebellious theologians rather than to the Church.

Early in the meeting a motion was passed to the effect that there would be no minority Report on the grounds that they were considering a pastoral matter, not a doctrinal one.

It was announced that no written record would be kept so that there would be greater freedom of expression.

There was great pressure of time. Witness Bishop Emmett Carter working until the small hours of the morning twice in order to formulate some passages.

At the request of Bishop Ryan of Hamilton, I sent to Winnipeg 80 copies of a short paper I wrote against Fr. Karl Rahner's theory of dissent. I knew that Fr. Sheridan was taking to Winnipeg a defence of the Rahner theory. My Archbishop, Archbishop Pocock of Toronto, had my paper suppressed. He wrote to me from Winnipeg saying that I need have no fear for the orthodoxy of the Canadian Bishops.

A motion by Archbishop Wilhelm to delay the publication of the Statement for further study and reflection was declared out of order without a vote.

These are perhaps the reasons why Bishop Francis Allen, Auxiliary Bishop of Toronto, told me that the general atmosphere of "engineering" was a "disgrace."

Sufficiency of grace and the W.S.

Fr. Ryan tells us that the Canadian bishops reached out to those faithful laity who could not, even with an informed conscience, accept the encyclical's teaching on artificial contraception. This is the heresy on which the W.S. is based. It is defined doctrine that God's grace is sufficient to observe what He commands. In defining this truth, the Council of Trent quotes the classic words of St. Augustine: "Deus impossibilia non jubet" ("God does not order the impossible"). To all married couples God says what He said to St. Paul: "My grace is sufficient for you"(II Cor. 12:9).

Fr. Ryan, the W.S., and the reception of Holy Communion

Fr. Ryan reports with approval that the Canadian Bishops at Winnipeg reached out to those who could not accept the Church's teaching on contraception, advising them that this should not keep them away from the sacraments. Catholics by the tens of thousands seized on this tragic error to contracept and receive Holy Communion without Confession or purpose of amendment.

Holy Communion received by those who contracept, even when that sin is only objectively but not subjectively grave, is a horrendous desecration of the Body and Blood of Christ. This sacrilege brings with it, whether known or unknown, all the love-killing, faith-killing, family-killing, sometimes life-killing dynamisms of the contraceptive act. There is no more certain way of destroying the Catholic Church than the spread of the contraceptive mentality.

The binding force

On this 40th anniversary of Gaudium et spes, we can take comfort in the knowledge that this document is in harmony with H.V. and that its principles repudiate the W.S.

What is the binding force of the W.S.? Being neither a collegial nor magisterial document, its binding force is nil. It has precisely that weight as a statement by dissenters Charles Curran or Hans Kung or Gregory Baum. As clarified by the later document Apostolos suos (May 1998), national episcopal conferences are not an expression of collegiality, but derive their authenticity from their unity with the Pope. As of themselves they have no teaching authority.

What Gaudium et spes (Joy and Hope) there would be if the Winnipeg Statement were recalled and Humanae vitae were taught and lived. We ought surely to pray for our Canadian bishops that they might have the faith, the courage, and the wisdom to right a great wrong.

Msgr. Vincent Foy's latest book has just come off the press: Birth control: Is Canada out of step with Rome? Toronto, Life Ethics Information Centre, 2005, pp. 127. $9.95. See advertisement below. These include Monsignor's articles, together with some letters and answers which appeared in Catholic Insight from 2000 to 2005.

An earlier publication was entitled A search for the truth: Did Pope Paul VI approve the Winnipeg Statement?, same publisher, 1997, pp. 63, Out of Print. Several articles on the same subject appeared in Challenge magazine, 1988, with the October 1988 article being reprinted as "Tragedy in Winnipeg," Human Life International Reprint.