Winnipeg Statement: 40 years later

  • Thread starter Thread starter cialovesyou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cialovesyou

Guest
A friend recently pointed me to the Winnipeg Statement, which I had vaguely heared of before(I am not Canadian). I read extracts of it, but I have not got my hands on the full text yet.
Anyway, this friend claimed it was heresy, which in my view is total nonsense.
So I thought I would open a thread to get the views of others on this teaching of the canadian bishops.
So, your thoughts?
Please frame your comments carefully, and thoughtfully, we dont need comments such as “The Canadian Bishops are heretics”, or such, I want to discuss the issues.
 
I honestly have not heard of this, so I’ll have to go and investigate it before I can comment.

I’ll let you know.

🙂
 
A friend recently pointed me to the Winnipeg Statement, which I had vaguely heared of before(I am not Canadian). I read extracts of it, but I have not got my hands on the full text yet.
Anyway, this friend claimed it was heresy, which in my view is total nonsense.
So I thought I would open a thread to get the views of others on this teaching of the canadian bishops.
So, your thoughts?
Please frame your comments carefully, and thoughtfully, we dont need comments such as “The Canadian Bishops are heretics”, or such, I want to discuss the issues.
The Winnipeg statement can be viewed here:

therosarium.ca/indextemps/winnipeg.html
 
As I recall it marked a definite turning point in the Canadian Church, and not for the better. Her influence on public life has decreased steadily ever since.
 
A friend recently pointed me to the Winnipeg Statement, which I had vaguely heared of before(I am not Canadian). I read extracts of it, but I have not got my hands on the full text yet.
Anyway, this friend claimed it was heresy, which in my view is total nonsense.
So I thought I would open a thread to get the views of others on this teaching of the canadian bishops.
So, your thoughts?
Please frame your comments carefully, and thoughtfully, we dont need comments such as “The Canadian Bishops are heretics”, or such, I want to discuss the issues.
If you want a truthful unbiased report on the Winnipeg Statement read the following from Msgr. Foy:

catholicsagainstcontraception.com/contraception_vs_abortion.htm
 
I could only give a rather cursory reading of the Winnepeg Statement. I would be a bit hesitant to make an outright label of heresy. The bishops were responding in part to the very realisitic fact that a very significant segement of the Catholic Mass attending population was already using birth control through the Pill prior to Humanae Vitae, and the increase in useage was bordering on the exponential. They were dealing with the issue “where the rubber meets the road”, if you will, and had a situation that was already out of control and careening more in that direction. It was no longer an issue of sticking one’s finger in the dike to stem the flow of water; the dike was breached and the water flooding the territories.

At least part of what they said sounded in moral theology of the indvidual following their own conscience. The Church has a two-pronged approach to matters of conscience; when confronted with an issue of moral consequence, the individual must follow their conscience. What the bishops do not say, it seems, or not clearly say, is that while the individual in the immediate situation must follow their conscience, they also at the same time have a duty to have a correctly formed conscience; if their conscience is not in conformity with the Church, then they must continue to grapple with the issue, to search out what the Church says (i.e. read more, discuss more, etc) and to continue to try to form their conscience in conformity with Church teaching.

That seems to be the part that is so often not just misunderstood, but not understood at all; once one has made a decision, the matter is not over if the decision is about a continuing act.

As to how the Church in Canada ended up with so few still actively practicing, teh issue is complex and has many factors. I do not doubt that the Pill has part of the responsiblity. I would be hesitant to ascribe it the ony or even the majority cause. That it has had an impact I have no question, but one needs to be extremely cautious of ascribing simple causes to complex effects.
 
A friend recently pointed me to the Winnipeg Statement, which I had vaguely heared of before(I am not Canadian). I read extracts of it, but I have not got my hands on the full text yet.
Anyway, this friend claimed it was heresy, which in my view is total nonsense.
So I thought I would open a thread to get the views of others on this teaching of the canadian bishops.
So, your thoughts?
Please frame your comments carefully, and thoughtfully, we dont need comments such as “The Canadian Bishops are heretics”, or such, I want to discuss the issues.
I’d call it heresy - but then again all I know is that it is contrary to Humanae Vitae.

Catholig
 
I could only give a rather cursory reading of the Winnepeg Statement. I would be a bit hesitant to make an outright label of heresy. The bishops were responding in part to the very realisitic fact that a very significant segement of the Catholic Mass attending population was already using birth control through the Pill prior to Humanae Vitae, and the increase in useage was bordering on the exponential. They were dealing with the issue “where the rubber meets the road”, if you will, and had a situation that was already out of control and careening more in that direction. It was no longer an issue of sticking one’s finger in the dike to stem the flow of water; the dike was breached and the water flooding the territories.

At least part of what they said sounded in moral theology of the indvidual following their own conscience. The Church has a two-pronged approach to matters of conscience; when confronted with an issue of moral consequence, the individual must follow their conscience. What the bishops do not say, it seems, or not clearly say, is that while the individual in the immediate situation must follow their conscience, they also at the same time have a duty to have a correctly formed conscience; if their conscience is not in conformity with the Church, then they must continue to grapple with the issue, to search out what the Church says (i.e. read more, discuss more, etc) and to continue to try to form their conscience in conformity with Church teaching.

That seems to be the part that is so often not just misunderstood, but not understood at all; once one has made a decision, the matter is not over if the decision is about a continuing act.

As to how the Church in Canada ended up with so few still actively practicing, teh issue is complex and has many factors. I do not doubt that the Pill has part of the responsiblity. I would be hesitant to ascribe it the ony or even the majority cause. That it has had an impact I have no question, but one needs to be extremely cautious of ascribing simple causes to complex effects.
I am not a theologian so I can’t give an accurate answer as to whether its heresy but I can say it was disobedient and that is never good nor should be condoned.

It was true that Catholic couples were using contraception prior to Humanae Vitae partly because Priests told them to after the Papal Commission to study the Pill said to approve it (I think it was in 1965 that they said to approve it but I am not sure).

What needs to be said too is Cardinal Carter’s role in it. I believe at the time he wasn’t a Cardinal but a Bishop but he was instrumental in forming the Winnipeg Statement and in his biography he emphatically said that they had to give Catholic Couples who were contracepting an “out”.

God NEVER asks the impossible and if I know this then surely so does every Priest and Bishop. They should not be afraid to proclaim the truth and have the humility to say that they erred in allowing the pill prior to Humanae Vitae.
 
At the very least, the statement itself constitues a propositio theologice erronea, for all who assented the position of statement, material heresy and for those individuals that did so knowing that it was at odds with the teaching of the Church, it constitutes formal heresy.
 
I wouldn’t say Foy is unbiased. He is probably the main attacker of this teaching. Doesn’t mean he is wrong, although I think he goes overboard, but he isn’t exactly a centrist on the issue.
Well I suppose it depends too on how unbiased can be applied. Could it be said that the Catholic Church is unbiased in its opposition to abortion on demand?

Also regarding Msgr. Foy, its easy for him to be passionate about this as he/we have seen the effects of that disastrous statement.
 
I have seen Foy quoted as claiming this document has lead to gay marriage, extra marital sex, has pitted families against each other, and, curiously, “fostered support for the fundamental option”.

Now, I suspect that is going too far.

As for the fundamental option, it is not quite clear why Foy has issues with it. Of course there are limits to it, but this was raised by the previous Pope, without condemnation of the teaching.

Anyway, I think Foy is over-stating the impact of this statement, which did not in any way say that Artificial contraception was morally acceptable. It simply offered Pastoral advice on how it should be applied.

Frankly, Foy does not equal a National Conference of Bishops in terms of teaching authority, or wisdom. If he disagrees with the teaching, cut the hyperbole, and I will listen to him.
 
  1. 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
.

I was reading along, thinking, “this isn’t so bad. I wonder what I’m missing.” Then I read this portion.

sigh.

I doubt most Canadian Catholics read this statement, but I’m sure all the priests did. And, I imagine that it did have a big impact on the way they approached the topic.

The bishops will have a lot to answer for when they stand before God.
 
I am not a theologian so I can’t give an accurate answer as to whether its heresy but I can say it was disobedient and that is never good nor should be condoned.
Yep.
It was true that Catholic couples were using contraception prior to Humanae Vitae partly because Priests told them to after the Papal Commission to study the Pill said to approve it (I think it was in 1965 that they said to approve it but I am not sure).
Actually, the Commission started because Catholics were using the Pill. The Pill came out in the 1950’s. Usage was already very widespread before the Commission was started; I think, but I am not sure that John 23rd started it and then died; but it may be that Paul 6th started it; he was the one who increased the members and pulled in scientists and doctors.
What needs to be said too is Cardinal Carter’s role in it. I believe at the time he wasn’t a Cardinal but a Bishop but he was instrumental in forming the Winnipeg Statement and in his biography he emphatically said that they had to give Catholic Couples who were contracepting an “out”.

God NEVER asks the impossible and if I know this then surely so does every Priest and Bishop. They should not be afraid to proclaim the truth and have the humility to say that they erred in allowing the pill prior to Humanae Vitae.
I agree that they need to preach the truth. How to do so is sometimes the issue. I cannot speak to the Cardinal’s statements, but I think there were more than a few bishops who saw the storm coming. There had never been, and hasn’t been since, such a violent, immediate reaction of dissent to a papal statement as HV generated. The reaction to that drove much, if not most of the dissent that has occured since then to so many other issues.

Hardly anyone of reasonably good faith would agreethat the staements Paul 6th made in and after HV were prophetic; one only has to look at the sociology of the family then and now to note the changes. All may not agree that the results were due to ABC, but many people now aresaying the connection is clear. Interestingly, some Protestant theologians have been re-thinking their postion about ABC; they too can see the carnage that has been created.

Sadly, after that Paul 6th had little or nothing to say publicly; is supect there was not another day of his life that he didn’t wonder what he could have done differently.
 
Yep.

Actually, the Commission started because Catholics were using the Pill. The Pill came out in the 1950’s. Usage was already very widespread before the Commission was started; I think, but I am not sure that John 23rd started it and then died; but it may be that Paul 6th started it; he was the one who increased the members and pulled in scientists and doctors.

I agree that they need to preach the truth. How to do so is sometimes the issue. I cannot speak to the Cardinal’s statements, but I think there were more than a few bishops who saw the storm coming. There had never been, and hasn’t been since, such a violent, immediate reaction of dissent to a papal statement as HV generated. The reaction to that drove much, if not most of the dissent that has occured since then to so many other issues.

Hardly anyone of reasonably good faith would agreethat the staements Paul 6th made in and after HV were prophetic; one only has to look at the sociology of the family then and now to note the changes. All may not agree that the results were due to ABC, but many people now aresaying the connection is clear. Interestingly, some Protestant theologians have been re-thinking their postion about ABC; they too can see the carnage that has been created.

Sadly, after that Paul 6th had little or nothing to say publicly; is supect there was not another day of his life that he didn’t wonder what he could have done differently.
Yes you are right about Pope John XXIII starting the Commission. He died and then Pope Paul VI resumed it. It would not surprise me that Catholics did start to use it in the 50s but if I recall correctly the Pill came out in 1959.
 
Yes you are right about Pope John XXIII starting the Commission. He died and then Pope Paul VI resumed it. It would not surprise me that Catholics did start to use it in the 50s but if I recall correctly the Pill came out in 1959.
In 1941, progesterone was first made from wild Mexican yams.

In 1945, a Harvard endocrinologist wrote about the possible use about birth control through hormone therapy.

In 1951 in a lab in Mexico City, the first orally effective form of progesterone was created.

In 1952, contraceptive chemiclas were shown to work when tested on women (as in, regulating their cycle).

In 1954 the first human trials were approved by the FDA.

By 1955, it had been shown conclusively from the tests that it stopped ovulation.

In 1956, Enovid was made, and in an article in Science magazinein Novemeber of 1955, the information was made widely public about it’s use and effectiveness.

In 1957 Enovid was approved for treatment of sever menstrual disorders, with the note that it would prohibit ovulation (this may sound odd, but most states still had laws preventing the sale of contracpetives; and some, if not a large part of the research had been directed towards treating menstrual disorders).

In 1959, President Eisenhower stated that birth control was not the governemnt’s business.

By late 1959, over 500,000 women were using the Pill. It was touted as simply extending the safe period.

By 1962 1.2 million women were using it in the US.

By 1963, 2.3 million women were using the Pill.

By 1964, 25% of married couples were using it.

In 1965, 6.5 million women were using it in America.

By 1967, 12.5 million users were estimated world wide.

In 1968 Humanae Vitae was issued.

By 1970, and estimated 2/3s of all Catholic women were using some form of birth control, with 28% using the Pill.

By 1973, 10 million women were using the Pill in the US.

By the 1980’s, and estimated 80% of Catholic women were using the Pill, among its variations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top