Bishops and Humanae vitae in October.

FR. ALPHONSE DE VALK, C.S.B.

As previously reported, the Society for Catholic Life and Culture--in support of Bishops Colin Campbell, Roman Danylak, and Basil Filevich--also called upon Canadian bishops to approve a new statement which would reaffirm Humanae vitae and defend its ban on artificial contraception, this coming October.

The request captured the attention of the secular press, in particular The Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen (see CI, September, pp 26-27). Canada's Catholic weeklies have followed suit in adopting the slant of the seculars, namely that these initiatives appealed to conservative Catholics. As if it were a matter of political partisanship.

The request for the question to be put on the list of topics to be dealt with at the CCCB's plenary meeting in Niagara Falls in October, has, as yet (Sept. 8), not met with a positive reply. Msgr. Peter Schonenbach, the CCCB general secretary, has been quoted to say that he doubted this matter would make it to the floor of the assembly, because "the agenda is full."

When a London Catholic sent a letter to Cardinal Turcotte, president of the CCCB, asking that the Winnipeg Statement be revoked, Msgr. Schonenbach seemed to hint that there was no necessity for it:

"For your information, I am enclosing a letter from the Apostolic Delegate to the President of this Episcopal Conference, dated October 21, 1968, indicating that His Holiness Pope Paul VI had with satisfaction taken cognizance of the 1967 statement on Humanae vitae by the bishops of Canada."

Msgr. Vincent Foy, who has studied the encyclical and the Canadian response to it over a period of years, commented to Catholic Insight:

"Anyone who places side by side paragraph 14 of Humanae vitae and paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement will see that the Pope and the bishops are not saying the same thing. The Pope says that there are no circumstances which justify the use of contraceptives. The bishops say that in some circumstances married couples may be safely assured that they may use those means which seem right to them. . . . The difference is that between right and wrong, life and death, heaven and hell."

Msgr. Foy believes that to insinuate that the Winnipeg Statement has the Pope's approval is simply calumny. And he maintains that the Niagara Falls meeting is a marvellous opportunity for the Bishops to reaffirm Humanae vitae and ensure that the Winnipeg Statement may never again be used to justify contraception, sterilization and the killing of the unborn.

Jake MacKenzie

In order to bring out once more the urgency of the issue, I would like to quote at some length from a letter sent by Mr. Jake MacKenzie of London, ON, to all the bishops in July. Speaking about the Winnipeg Statement of September 1968 and the subsequent widespread use of contraceptives among Catholics he observes:

"To me, the crux of the matter is one word--perception. If a survey were conducted in any diocese in Canada--as to whether or not it is morally proper for a Catholic couple to use a means, other than Natural Family Planning, to restrict the birth of a child--the majority would answer: `It all depends upon the dictates of one's conscience.' Very few would add the adjective `informed.' That is the mindset that prevails today amongst the faithful in Canada. It has been passed on from generation to generation.

"In support of that proposition, I recount one example. The occasion was a discussion during a Stratford and Area Right to Life dinner, a few years ago. At the table were a married couple, a young woman, and a middle-age man. I posed the factual situation of twins marrying, one of whom decided that she could not use contraceptives, and the other who decided that she could do so, according to her conscience. When I asked how the twins could stand equally before Almighty God, the response was unanimous--they could.

"If it is true that most Catholics in Canada take that position, what is the source of all that belief? It does not come from Humanae vitae. You will recall that it was therein stated that `each an every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life' (para. 11). I could find no statement in the document justifying the use of one's conscience as the final criterion regarding whether an individual could use a contraceptive device during sexual intercourse. Neither could I find other pertinent Vatican documents that support that attitude.

Mr. MacKenzie goes on to say:

"The source of the belief--conscience-directed use by Catholic couples of contraceptive devices--appears to be paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement which states in part:

`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 assured that whoever honestly chooses that course that seems right to him does so in good conscience.'

"That pronouncement overlooks Divine Revelation: `And He said to me; My grace is sufficient for thee' (2 Cor 12:9)."

MacKenzie continues:

"Pope Paul VI, in paragraph 20 of Humanae vitae, under the heading `Possibility of Observing the Divine Law,' after conceding that `the teaching of the Church on birth regulation, which is a promulgation of the divine law, will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible to put into practice,' pointed out that the commitment to observe that law `would not be livable without the help of God, who upholds and strengthens the good will of men,' and that `such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community' (emphasis added).

"It appears, therefore, that there is a direct conflict between the position enunciated in the Papal document and the CCCB's paragraph 26, regarding the possibility of observing God's law against contraception. They are impossible to reconcile."

Catechism

Mr. MacKenzie then notes that the bishops have since accepted the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. He refers to the Catechism's discussion on marriage including No. 2366, which says that "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life [footnote] 3, Humanae vitae 11."

He quotes No. 2368 which cites Vatican II, Gaudium et spes:

"When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behaviour does not depend on the sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria . . . criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation..." (emphasis added).

Paragraph 2370 states:

". . . `every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil--[Footnote] 3, Humanae vitae 14."

" `Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other'--[Footnote] 4, Familiaris Consortio 32."

He concludes: "Catholic doctrine as declared in the Catechism is quite clear. The use of contraceptives is not allowed, period. Their employment is in the same category as abortion--both `intrinsically evil'. Contraceptive intercourse is closed to the `transmission of life.' Total self-giving is not effected. (Technically speaking, intercourse when contraception is resorted to cannot be called `the marriage act.')

"According to the Gaudium et spes statement, if a couple, no matter how sincere, with the aim of educating their children all the way through university to the doctorate level, are induced to limit the generation of children by the use of contraceptive devices, the `behaviour' would not `be determined by objective criteria'; it would not be determined by `criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation. . . .'

"The aforementioned declarations in the Catechism regarding the moral behaviour of married persons allow for no exceptions; there are no qualifications. The language employed in paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement is not adopted. There is no express or implied reference that the aforesaid rules or marital conduct can be overruled by the dictates of one's conscience."

Moral Conscience

Still citing the Catechism, McKenzie touches upon the moral conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. . . . Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed" (para. 1790).

". . . assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and Her teaching. . . . these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct" (para. 1792). (emphasis added).

MacKenzie then alludes to the reference document of Feb, 12, 1997, entitled Vademecum for Confessors and notes that:

"There is no provision in this instruction which would permit a penitent to `be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course that seems right to him does so in good conscience' within the meaning of paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement. In other words, Vademecum does not give the applicant the right to set himself or herself up as the final arbiter as to whether he or she commits a mortal sin by the use of contraceptives or abortifacients.

"Hence the need for a definitive statement from our Bishops correcting the erroneous impression that one's conscience alone dictates the standard concerning the morality of one's marital conduct. The ideal statement seems to be succinctly declared in Vademecum, footnote 32, as follows:

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 light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of Divine Law (Gaudium et spes, 50)."

(Editor: All these ideas the Canadian bishops themselves expressed in their own 1973 statement on conscience issued four years after the Winnipeg Statement, but ignored by everybody because it did not specifically refer to that statement, leaving it intact in the mind of people.)

The situation today

In summarizing the situation today--which had been forecast by Pope Paul VI--Mr. MacKenzie quotes Teresa McKenna, M.D., of the Marguerite Bourgeoys Family Services, who remarked at a conference held in London, Ontario, this Spring, 1998:

"Now in the 90's, thirty years after Humanae vitae, we see the results of contraceptive use. Infidelity, a total disregard for marriage, out-of-wed-lock pregnancies, single-parent families, one- or at best two-child families, rampant venereal disease with consequent infertility, and abortion on demand, in many countries are considered to be the norm for our civilized society.

"The contraceptive mentality has left us with a very negative view of life. Children are no longer accepted as a gift bestowed only by God. They have become a burden or, at best, a means by which the parent becomes fulfilled. They have become a commodity like any other commodity in our consumer society."

A final and important point for consideration, MacKenzie points out, is the fact that today's contraceptive pills are abortifacients. The most recent "morning-after pill" is only one example, despite denials from some physicians.

Mr. MacKenzie concludes his long letter by noting: (1) Contraception is a mortal sin; and (2) Contraception is the root cause of abortion, which is also a mortal sin.

He adds: "Never in the history of the Catholic Church in Canada has there been an issue of such magnitude! Never!! It cries out for speedy resolution. The souls of millions of Catholic faithful are at stake!!"

What more can we say?

Please continue to pray for the success of the October meeting. Plase write a letter to your local bishop and, if possible, gather in some signatures on the proposed new re-affirmation (see below) and send them along with your letter to your bishop (and to us). So far we have 400 names.

A late News flash

It has been confirmed that the Humanae vitae issue will be on the bishops' October agenda.