It is now some twenty-nine years since the Canadian Bishops at a plenary assembly promulgated that which came to be known as the Winnipeg Statement (WS).

To the distress of many of those Bishops, to this day WS is generally considered an outright dissent from the teaching of Pope Paul VI as found in his encyclical Humanae vitae, which "by virtue of the charge laid upon us by Christ" affirmed "that every single act of marriage must retain all of its natural potential to generate human life." Argument on this point has not ceased since WS was issued. Like it or not, agitation for the total repudiation of WS will continue until such time as the Canadian Bishops find the courage to admit they made a grave mistake in issuing it in September of 1968. Now Cardinal Carter's recently-published pamphlet, "The Whole Truth about the Winnipeg Statement of 1968" attempts to make the case that WS earned the approval of the long-suffering Pope Paul VI. This article will show just how illogical and even absurd it is to suggest that he did approve of it, given that it taught the very opposite of what he taught. In fact, the Winnipeg Statement, in its utter sophistry, rejects the teaching of not just one pope but, in fact, the teaching of at least four popes.

WS makes much of duties to one's conscience. Accordingly, it will be useful first to examine the Church's teaching on this subject. Now, conscience is the judgement of the intellect, dictating what is to be done as morally wrong, in the particular circumstances in which one finds oneself. Conscience is the dictate of reason, that is the mind of man passing moral judgements. Conscience is correct when it correctly dictates what is right or wrong, and it is erroneous when it judges falsely right as wrong or wrong as right. An erroneous conscience can be so through laxity, in which case it is vincibly erroneous, but if not through one's fault it is invincibly erroneous. To be a proper and valid norm of conduct, conscience must be certain and, if possible, correct. A vincibly erroneous conscience must be corrected by diligent study, inquiry, and consultation. Then as we read in section 1793 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "If the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgement, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore, work to correct the errors of moral conscience." The document of the Vatican Council known as Dignitatis humanae at section 14, actually tells one how this is to be accomplished:

"However, in forming their consciences, the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself." To repeat, conscience is of the intellect. It does not stem from emotions or feelings.

The tragedy of WS is that it had the result, because of its ambiguity, of causing many erroneous consciences. Its unfortunate paragraph 26 is expressed in such convoluted language as truly to defy logical analysis. We may well wonder what our Bishops were thinking of when they composed a sentence so obscure in meaning as this extract from that paragraph 26: "In accord with the accepted principles or 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." To the extent that sense can be drawn from these words, it posits the case of one who knows the teaching of Humanae vitae but when trying to govern himself according to its directives finds such difficulty in abstaining from practicing artificial contraception that he may consider himself in 'good' conscience should he then pursue any course which seems right to him. Now this is sheer nonsense. Just what are these "accepted principles of moral theology" that allow a person to disregard what he knows is correct because of its difficulty, because it requires self-control, courage, and sacrifice? In effect, we are told by WS that it is possible to have a correct conscience and then for the sake of personal convenience, change it for an invincibly erroneous conscience so that one may commit an intrinsically evil act of impurity and not be guilty of formal sin.

As has been shown, such a conscience actually would be vincibly erroneous. Actually, one might well consider such behaviour as that of a man with a correct conscience, in fact acting against his properly informed conscience. In a matter of such importance, it is difficult to imagine a person having once been properly informed all of a sudden becoming misinformed.

Cardinal Carter who takes credit for the actual composition of the paragraph, has left us his biography. Describing the moment the papal nuncio handed him some of his brother bishops a copy of Humanae vitae, we find this truly extraordinary passage: "It was with a certain sense of dismay that we read the vital passages in it. He had clearly taken a position that was contrary to the majority position of his own Commission. We felt that this was going to be a major problems." Now, how could any Bishop read with dismay an encyclical which reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Church that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and thus gravely sinful? How could they feel that it was a major problem for them to teach the faithful this everlasting truth? Had they forgotten the identical teaching found in Pope Pius XIs Casti connubii? In that encyclical, we read: "any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life in an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." Did our Bishops no longer believe in the moral truths repeatedly and consistently taught by holy Mother Church? Putting this bluntly, had some of them lost their faith? One does wonder.

When questioned on these points, our bishops take refuge in the dissimulation that they were not dissenting from the teaching of Paul VI, but were merely offering pastoral guidance. Maybe so, but the pastoral guidance tendered differed diametrically from the guidance found on the same point in Humanae vitae. In its section 25, we find with reference to husbands and wives: "If they are still being held back by their sins, they must not lose heart. Humbly, with no thought of giving up, they must seek refuge in the mercy of God, available without limit in the sacrament of Penance." One can ask then, what is truly pastoral? To induce erroneous consciences or to exhort continued recourse to the sacraments in order to gain the graces necessary to avoid sins of impurity? On this point, the words of Pope Pius XI again are particularly relevant: "We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: 'They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit'."

Cardinal Carter has even written of WS: "What was our major, if not sole, objective was that people who in their marriages found that it was impossible to follow the directive of the encyclical and at the same time do justice to their spouse in their sexual relationship." This thought is reflected in the often overlooked paragraph 17 in WS which reads: "It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine." The suggestion found here that God's commands are impossible to follow denies the constant teaching of the Church. Saint Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians in verse 9 chapter 12 quotes Our Blessed Lord as saying: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Then the Council of Trent at chapter 11 of the sixth session declares: "Let no one be so rash as to assert...that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able, that He may help you." Again, in 1653, Pope Innocent III condemned the Jansenist proposition that "some of God's commandments are impossible to just men, who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have. The grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting." Of course as has been shown, Pope Paul VI in his encyclical demonstrated total adherence to this constant teaching, which WS most certainly did not. In fact, it repeated a heresy that the Church has had to condemn time and again.

This manner of thinking on the part of our bishops was condemned yet again by Pope John Paul II in his Veritatis splendor where at section 56, we read: "In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called 'pastoral' solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a 'creative' hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept. No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God's law." Possibly, Pope John Paul II had WS in mind when composing these words, as a clearer refutation and condemnation of the sophistry and errors of paragraph 26 in WS would be hard to find.

If more proof were needed that WS did not "satisfy" Pope Paul VI, one has merely to consider the further document that the Canadian Bishops issued in an effort to defuse the unceasing criticism of WS. That statement had so misrepresented the Church's teaching on conscience that the Bishops were enjoined to promulgate their Statement on the Formation of Conscience in December 1973. This latter statement was satisfyingly orthodox in clearly stating that one may not act in accordance with whims and wishes, but that "A believer has the absolute obligation of conforming his conduct first and foremost to what the Church teaches." While this in effect quite contradicted the wretched paragraph 26 of WS, the statement failed to undo the great harm that had been done, as the faithful were only barely informed of its publication. Paragraph 26 continues to be taught in marriage preparation courses thereby giving candidates for marriage the idea that they may indeed act in accordance with whims and wishes.

Did WS satisfy pope Paul VI? The claim is incredible. As we have shown, WS denies the teaching of Saint Paul, Pope Innocent III, Pope Pius XI, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II. Recently, the association known as Catholics for Truth and Justice, of which this writer is a member, submitted a response to our bishops in answer to their request for subjects to be considered at the Synod of the Americas. The response read in part as follows: "Many suggested the root cause for the erosion of faith and lack of a sense of sin among Catholics in Canada derived from the 'Winnipeg Statement.' This, in turn, gave rise to the notion among Catholics that if they were permitted to make up their own minds about contraception, then they must also be permitted to make up their minds about any or all the teachings of the Church. This, in turn, led to a loss of a sense of having done wrong should one disobey the Magisterium and a loss of respect for priests, whose commission to teach had been undermined. A public rescinding of the 'Winnipeg Statement' would make a beginning at remedying the confusion of faith and shore up the strength of the family.

In concluding with these wise words, we submit the case has been made that to suggest Pope Paul VI was 'satisfied' with WS is only to indulge in a self-serving absurdity.