World March of Women: a Catholic controversy.

The controversy about Catholic participation in the World March of Women (WMW), purportedly against violence and poverty, has exploded. Some regard this disagreement as disastrous, though it is better to see it as an opportunity for more dialogue and democratic accountability. Alas, at the time of writing there are few indications of this.

The issue stands as follows. On February 17, the current President of the Canadian Bishops' Conference (CCCB) Bishop Gerald Wiesner, of Prince George, G.C., penned an invitation to Catholics to join the WMW 2000, apparently never thinking that some might object. The Catholic Women's League (CWL), without consulting its members, agreed at once. The Canadian Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP, hereafter D&P), the Catholic Conference of Religious (CCR),and the Catholic teachers' union of Ontario (OECTA) had been in support already. A small CCCB committee of four bishops (two French, two English - Wiesner of Prince George, O'Brien of Pembroke) bestowed its approval, as did CCCB staff. The invitation was called Marching together.

Violence against women is widespread. Generous-minded people should feel obliged to join the struggle against poverty and violence as, indeed, the Church is doing around the world. The lot of women is very much a concern of the Catholic community. Should we not show solidarity with all those who suffer and help them organize to gain their rightful place in society? Who could possibly object?

Well, objections, at first few, soon became a torrent. Needless to say, they were not directed at the purpose of helping women, but at the company the Bishops were keeping. It started with the opening day of WMW 2000, March 8, International Women's Day, a Marxist -founded traditional day of showing women's solidarity and power. In Montreal one of the participating groups, "Collectif Autonome Feministe," decided to trash Montreal's Catholic cathedral as an expression of their contempt for the Catholic Church.

Next, pro-lifers, long acquainted with the verbal violence of feminists, whether in or outside Canada, discovered first that the Canadian organizers were the usual proponents of abortion, lesbianism, and other feminist demands and, second, that the International March headquartered in Montreal listed D&P, together with the governments of Canada and Quebec, as financial partners who had contributed over $100,000 each. A quick survey of various web-sites confirmed that the difference between the national and the international organization appeared minimal.

Later on, in early May, the Secretary General of the CCCB, Msgr. Peter Schonenbach, would angrily denounce pro-lifers. "The trouble with the pro-life people is," he said, that "they take everything out of context" (Catholic Register, May 15). In actual fact, it was the other way around. The Interim and its on-line service Lifesite were putting Bishop Wiesner's letter in context, namely that of his partners.

Once the above news got out in early April, the fat was in the fire. CWL grassroots members revolted. On April 4, the spiritual convenor of Toronto's St. Monica's parish, as soon as she heard the news of the involvement of the CWL and the Ottawa Conference of Bishops with the Women's March, and the money donated by Development and Peace, wrote CWL President, Sheilah Pellerin, and her own sister-members expressing her astonishment and dismay. In Cambridge ON, April 24, the CWL executive of St. Ambrose Council sent a letter to the National Executive saying they had "overstepped the boundaries" of their authority and that the 200-member council felt "betrayed and insulted." A resolution that "the National level disengage us from any agreement of support or cooperation" was passed overwhelmingly. One week later they approved a resolution calling for the resignation of the National Executive.

Of the 200 women present at the Peterborough Catholic Women's League diocesan convention held from April 29 to May 1, 195 voted to disssociate themselves from WMW 2000. On May 2, St. Benedict's Council in Toronto expressed similar sentiments. At the Durham (Oshawa, ON) CWL regional executive meeting of the same day, it was pointed out that the National Executive's decision to join the March had never been discussed on the lower levels and that individual CWL'ers were simply being bypassed.

On April 25, Mrs. Barbara Gobbi of Prince George, B.C., wrote all Canadian Bishops announcing that her diocesan CWL had passed a motion "with a wide margin" to disclaim not just the abortion plank in the WMW but to disclaim every demand not in keeping with the faith. "There is," she stated, "something irresponsible about the whole thing." It is not only the tone of "us against

them", she wrote, but the various web sites and documents prove that the organization's ideology is saturated with anti-Christian sentiments. Meanwhile in Saskatoon, SK, Mrs. Jacqueline Owen was trying to get details in order to present it to the diocesan CWL meeting there. And people across Canada, angry at D&P, were cancelling their monthly payments or withholding their donations to the collections of Share Lent, or Share Life as it is called in Toronto.

Two bishops wanted out

On April 19, in Hamilton ON, in response to a letter from CWL members in Cambridge ON, Bishop Anthony Tonnos wrote "that the CWL in the Diocese of Hamilton has already notified the National CWL office that our diocese will not be suporting this undertaking. I have also expressed my personal dissatisfaction to Development and Peace and to the Canadian Conference of Bishops."

Three weeks later, on May 9, Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic of Toronto informed all his priests and all Canadian bishops that Share Life would withhold $15,000 from its D&P 2000 collection, that being the Archdiocesan share of the $136,000 given by D&P to the March, and allocate it instead to its own Mission Fund to help women. The association of D&P with WMW "is indeed unfortunate", the Cardinal stated, "and we need to make a clear and definite statement to disassociate our Archdiocese with this movement."

No acknowledgement of criticisms

The overseeing bishops, the D&P agency, and the CWL executive decided to fight back. The CWL Executive announced that is was not supporting the abortion plank of WMW-Ottawa. In an April 11 letter, D&P's Executive Director, Fabien Leboeuf in Montreal, pointed out that they had given nothing to the Canadian Women sector, but only to third world groups falling under the International March umbrella. (Later on it listed these groups which seemed worthy of help.) Moreover, there was, he intimated nothing wrong with the International Women's agenda.

That defence was undermined by Vancouver nurse Cecily von Dehn, a CWL member, who had written the International Group in Montreal on December 29, 1999. On March 29, she received her answer. World March Executive Coordinator, Diane Matte, wrote to tell her that, after full consultation of the Coordinating Committee:

"It was unanimously decided that the demand to have a "pro-life" contingent at the World March is unacceptable to us since the anti-choice position defended by your organization is in clear contradiction with the objectives pursued by the March...."

This official reply has had no impact on D&P. A May 8 letter sent from the Toronto D&P office to Sturgeon Falls, ON, denied that the international group was proabortion. Similarly, in an interview, D&P spokeswoman Mary Corkery indicated that she was not impressed by the reaction of Cardinal Ambrozic. "It's $15,000. It's a small amount. We can't do much other than say we disagree," she stated. She too insisted that D&P does not accept that the Women 2000's policy on a "woman's right to control her body and reproductive functions" refers to abortion. Rather, she said, it "deals with forced marriage, sterilization and genital mutilation" (National Post, May 15).

Having made up their minds to stay locked in denial, D&P felt free to accuse Campaign Life Coalition and the Interim of propagating falsehoods; the reaction of the CCCB's General Secretary has been described already; and the CWL leaders appeared determined to put the local members in their place and enforce obedience. No one was to speak to the press, except presidents.

In its May document, Development and Peace and the World March of Women 2000 , D&P scoffs at the idea that the March is under the influence of "radical feminists". It debunks this as "name-calling". In fact, it rejects the idea that there is anything wrong with feminism at all.

Finally May 16, in a Joint statement of clarification on the March of Women 2000, the CCCB, D&P, CWL, and the Conference of Religious reaffirmed their "support of the objectives" of this year's World March of Women. "These objectives" are "to end violence against women and poverty". "The March of Women 2000" they stated," is a powerful bridge of solidarity to our sisters." It has nothing to do with abortion. As for the Canadian WMW demands, they had declined to endorse them.

Where do we stand? First, the CCCB has--once again--taken a stand of which a number of bishops disapprove. It should examine itself. Secondly, D&P needs to be much more accountable for moneys spent. Thirdly, for the CWL, the current uproar should be seen as a positive move, not as a "lot of negativity" as someone characterized the controversy. The temptation will be to stifle this debate. Instead, don't be afraid to air conflicting views on important social issues. Everyone should be informed about the issue, and participate in the debates on the provincial levels and at the national convention in Prince Edward Island this coming August.