Humanae vitae - 30 years: the effects of the Winnipeg Statement.

Thirty years ago the Canadian bishops felt it necessary to modify the birth control encyclical Humanae vitae, a teaching which the affluent world of North America and Europe roundly rejected. The Canadian response, too, known as the Winnipeg Statement, implied some sort of rejection, with this difference that in clause 26 it assured Catholics that they could do so "in good conscience." The author, in a letter addressed to all Canadian bishops but here printed as an article, briefly discusses the effects of this on Catholic educational material, in preparation for his request that the Statement be submitted for evaluation by Rome.

The clause considered to be most offensive reads as follows:

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 assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience."

Editor

This year is the 30th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae vitae, signed on July 25, 1968, and published on July 29, 1968. Its paramount importance is evident when one reflects that, as Pope John Paul II has said, "The future of the Church passes through the family." The rejection of Humanae vitae brings with it a train of evils which destroy family life: abortion, sterilization, contraception, infidelity, divorce, absence of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and loss of faith. It could be said that the progression or regression of the Church depends in great part on the acceptance or rejection of Humanae vitae.

Canada and Humanae vitae

While we celebrate a noteworthy anniversary we must lament that Humanae vitae has not been faithfully taught and accepted in Canada. Statistics vary but it is close to the truth to say that about 90% of married Canadian Catholics believe that they can contracept without sin and that contraceptive practice is not an obstacle to the reception of Holy Communion. In Canada Catholics abort, contracept, are sterilized, and are divorced at about the same rate as non-Catholics. Could there be a more ominous omen of what the future holds in store for the Church in Canada?

The good faith disaster

Even when couples contracept in good faith because of faulty instruction, the manifold evil fruits of contraceptive practice persist. The marriage itself might be invalid because of an intention "contrary to the right to have" children, whether that intention is temporary or permanent. Abortions might occur as an effect of abortifacient pills or devices. The marriage act is then transformed from love into mutual abuse, so that selfish hedonism replaces sacrificial affection. The contracepting couple become anti-familial in their attitudes. If there are children, these cannot but be influenced by their parents' corrupted relationship. Such a partnership is not conducive either to religious vocations or to handing on the Faith.

A major factor in the rejection of Humanae vitae in Canada is the commentary on it by the Canadian Bishops called The Winnipeg Statement, signed Friday, Sept 27, 1968.

Among other controversial affirmations, the Canadian Bishops said in reference to contraception that there were circumstances in which "whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience" (n.26).

John F. Kippley, internationally respected authority on the marriage covenant, founder of the Couple to Couple League, has said of paragraph 26 of the The Winnipeg Statement: "A more misleading statement would be hard to imagine. There are no principles of moral theology that allow a person to choose or engage in actions taught by the Church to be objectively immoral, whether such actions be adultery, contraception, fornication or sodomy. And of course, what applies to one behaviour applies to all the rest." (Sex and the Marriage Covenant, Couple to Couple League Int'l, 1991, p.145.)

Our Holy Father has said that to say there are circumstances in which contraception is licit is to say that there are circumstances in which God is no longer God. Yet countless Catholics have been falsely assured in approved texts and courses that there are circumstances in which they may contracept and not sin. The authority given is not God or the Church but the The Winnipeg Statement.

Here I give only one example among many of how The Winnipeg Statement is still currently used to lead young couples into a life of sin and moral bankruptcy. The Mosaic Marriage Preparation Course states: "For couples experiencing problems the bishops of Canada have said that those who `have chosen the way which seems the best for them' live in the love of God" (Couple's Book Creating a Family, Novalis, 1980, pp 8,9)

God's grace is sufficient

The Winnipeg Statement conveys the false notion that for some the observance of Humanae vitae is not possible. Many Canadian marriage preparation courses have locked into this error. Even a C.C.C.B. Working Paper supposedly published to support the Synod on the Family, persists in the error that God's law asks too much for some. We read: "To state that it is possible for everyone to carry out this law (against artificial contraception) would risk creating in the faithful a feeling of despair and guilt" (C.C.C.B. Working Paper: Responsible Procreation, 1983, p.52). Should not the guilty feel guilty precisely to lead them to conversion and peace?

To deny the sufficiency of grace is contrary to the teaching of the encyclical, to divine revelation, and to defined doctrine (cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, Ch. XI).

The spread of the Winnipeg virus

The deviant message of The Winnipeg Statement was not confined to Canada's borders. It was seized upon by dissenters of many countries to justify their rebellion against Humanae vitae. Literally three million copies of Anthony Wilhelm's book Christ Among Us, quoting paragraph 26 of The Winnipeg Statement, circulated throughout the English-speaking world before the Holy See ordered Bishop Gerety of Newark to withdraw his "Imprimatur". Wilhelm left the priesthood shortly after the first edition, which remained in print for 15 years. The text Path Through Catholicism by Mark Link, S.J., published in 1991 with the Imprimatur of the bishop of Dallas, Texas, has crossed national borders with its endorsement of a false notion of conscience based on The Winnipeg Statement (page 205). Other texts and courses used in England, and even Australia, have quoted The Winnipeg Statement to try to justify contraceptive use.

An article entitled "Formation of Conscience with Birth Control as an Example," by Kenneth Overbury, S.J., is still widely circulated in parishes, though written in the mid-eighties. It says, after quoting paragraph 26 of The Winnipeg Statement, "After Paul VI received a copy of the Canadian Statement the apostolic delegate to Canada, Archbishop Clarizio, informed the bishops that the Pope was quite satisfied with their interpretation and that he (Clarizio) appreciated the bishops' explaining `such an important document with due fidelity and respect to the Pope."' This statement is untrue because it is a fabrication. (Cf. my booklet Did Pope Paul VI Approve The Winnipeg Statement? A Search for the Truth, Life Ethics Information Centre, Toronto, 1997.)

The Winnipeg Statement should be revoked

In July, 1978, the Administrative Board of the C.C.C.B. announced that the future work of the C.C.C.B. would be concentrated in a special way on Christian family life--the strengthening of the Christian family. Unfortunately, it was not recognized that no strengthening was possible without the acceptance of Humanae vitae. Archbishop Carney of Vancouver went to the heart of the problem when he said in October, 1987: "We will not have deep renewal in the Church until the faithful accept the Church teaching that artificial contraception is seriously immoral and form their consciences according to that norm."

Every attempt at family renewal will fail as long as The Winnipeg Statement can be quoted or misquoted as justification for contraceptive use.

Even though it is more and more evident that The Winnipeg Statement and its spin-off endorsements have given family life a near-mortal wound in Canada and other places, I believe that it may be too impractical to hope for its revocation at this time. That will happen some good and glorious day.

A present and practical solution is for a group of Canadian Bishops to appeal to His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an evaluation of the doctrinal and pastoral orthodoxy of The Winnipeg Statement. Cardinal Ratzinger has expressed the opinion that statements of national hierarchies which have repercussions beyond national boundaries should be first submitted to the Holy See. While the time for that is past, the post-factum submission of The Winnipeg Statement for magisterial analysis would be of incalculable benefit to Canada and the Catholic world.

Would you be willing to join a Bishops' Appeal to the Holy See in this matter? If so, I would be happy and privileged to add your name to those who are going to undertake this blessed project and communicate it to them. May I please hear from you?

Surely our Canadian Catholics will forever hold in esteem those episcopal shepherds who participate in righting what has been a great wrong.

May God bless and guide us all in the way of Life and Love.

Msgr. Vincent Foy, now 83, is a canon lawyer and a former Director of Catechetics of the Archdiocese of Toronto.