Joseph Pope, D. Litt., F.I.C.B.
Pope & Company
15 Duncan Street
Toronto, ON M5H 3P9

Introduction

During the winter and spring of 1988 Challenge magazine printed a series of nine open letters addressed to the bishops of Canada. As the first two were hardly more than one sentence each in length they are being replaced in this reprinted collection by the addition of two short articles also written by the author responsible for the original open letters.

Challenge did nothing to commission the letters. It was only by chance that they were composed at all. In answer to one of its charming and quite delightful editor's published perennial pleas from the heart for financial help, the Toronto firm of Pope & Company committed themselves to the taking of a series of one-page advertisements. Now as every publisher and printer knows one page is a lot of white space, and white space takes filling. It had never been that firm's intention to be so crass as actually to use the space to advertise its services to the public, so gradually it came to be realized that the space might very usefully be used to urge bishops to return to orthodoxy, show loyalty to the Holy Father, curb liturgical abuses, preach the truths found in Humanae vitae, and thus be faithful to the memory of the Church's Divine Founder.

The venture, while a good and only too necessary one, did not appear to find much favour with our bishops. Approbation on their part was muted to say the least. Copies were carefully made available to every one of the country's seventy-five or so ordinaries in residence of both the Latin and Ukrainian rites. To what extent the letters worked their way past blockades set up by misguided secretaries, it is hard to say. It is known that three Latin rite bishops did take the trouble to dictate gracious letters of acknowledgement. Apart from the modest response it does not appear that the letters achieved very much.

The abuses, to which the long suffering laity are made to be the victims, continue. The misdeeds of a great number of the bishops continue. Naturally there are, thank God, some good bishops, but these in their tepid defences of the Faith do not show themselves to be the stuff of martyrs, such is their pusillanimity in failing either to preach courageously to their flocks or to remonstrate with their erring brother bishops. No Saint John Fishers are to be found in Canada today, but Cranmers there are and plenty of them. Not having repudiated their scandalous Winnipeg Statement, the bishops remain obdurate in their heretical dissent from the teaching of Humanae vitae.

These might seem strong words, but only because the rot in the Church in Canada has gone on for so long that we are in grievous danger of considering it the normal and proper state of affairs. It is not. It is an open secret that our country in these matters is second worst after the Netherlands. It took much effort on the part of many to bring us to this degraded level. It will take much greater effort on the part of many more to restore the Church in both English-speaking and French-speaking Canada to its former more devout state.

It is the hope of the author of these letters and of the publisher that in this reprinted form they will serve somehow to awaken a sense of duty and devotion in the minds and hearts of our spiritual leaders.

The letters appear in substance just as they were published originally. An occasional change was made to remove here and there an inappropriate anachronism.

The Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, 1994.

Letter Number One

DISSENT IS DISSENT

In Los Angeles on September 16th, 1987 Pope John Paul II spoke in part the following words to bishops of the United States of America:

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the Church's clear position on abortion... It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere... A number of other general points may be made. First, the Church is a community of faith. To accept faith is to give assent to the word of God as transmitted by the Church's authentic magisterium. Such assent constitutes the basic attitude of the believer and is an act of will as well as of the mind...theological discussion takes place within the framework of faith. Dissent from Church doctrine remains what it is, dissent; as such it may not be proposed or received on an equal footing with the Church's authentic teaching...as bishops we must be especially responsive to our role as authentic teachers of the faith when opinions at variance with the Church's teaching are proposed as a basis for pastoral practice...the title Catholic theologian expresses a vocation and a responsibility at the service of the community of faith and subject to the authority of the pastors of the Church...be vigilant that the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Church is faithfully and clearly presented to the seminarians, and fully accepted and understood by them.

These are important words indeed. Admittedly there are some who might presume to suggest that they are not infallible, basing their reasoning on the fact that they were addressed to bishops of the U.S.A. Only and not to the whole world even though the other two conditions enuciated in Vatican I, that they be spoken ex cathedra and on a matter of faith and morals, were only too obviously present and the Pope did use the word "elsewhere". Doubtless the Holy Father hoped too his words would be heard by bishops of other English-speaking and even French-speaking parts of North America. Be that as it may, according to Vatican II the faithful must give religious submission of will and of mind to the teaching of the Pope even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

While spoken with typical Roman discretion, tact, and charity, the Pope&'s words are heavy with meaning. Dissenters are those who refuse to assent. Therefore they may not receive communion, either because they have placed themselves outside the community of the faithful or else because their stubborn denial of the truths of the Church puts them in a state of grievous and mortal sin. Should a dissenter be at the same time (God forbid) a priest teaching theology, then he is not a Catholic theologian. The faithful would be well advised to flee the teachings of such a menace to society, given the danger of being proffered spiritual and moral advice which would not be in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

Were our Canadian bishops listening to the Pope's exhortations to their American colleagues and will they take them to heart?

Letter Number Two

THE ABUSES ENUMERATED BY THE POPE HIMSELF

The previous letter made the point that Pope John Paul II's addresses to the U.S. bishops were heavy with meaning. Indeed they were, and they will repay study for years to come.

An observer from the middle of the nineteenth century appearing on the scene today might well be forgiven for being astonished at the particular choice of subjects upon which the Holy Father chose to comment.

After all we are dealing here with bishops who by the very nature of their office can be presumed to have clear knowledge of their responsibilities and duties. Yet one notes the Holy Father feeling constrained to emphasize and as it were remind the bishops of their duties in rather basic areas. Some of these were:

1) seminarians are to have the teaching of the Church clearly and faithfully presented to them;

2) future priests are to be prepared to present the faith to the laity in ways that are intelligible and pastorally sound;

3) priests and bishops are to go to confession regularly;

4) the rules about general absolution are both to be taught and even observed;

5) the Church's teaching as to the intrinsic evil of sodomy is to be explained clearly to homosexuals;

6) those who dissent from the teaching of the Church have by this fact barred themselves from reception of the sacraments.

Our visitor from a previous century could well ask himself what might be going on in the last half of the twentieth century with the Pope choosing, all the while in a kind but unmistakeably clear manner, to enunciate such transparently obvious truths. Might not our visitor conclude that:

1) the clear guidelines of the second Vatican Council regarding the formation of priests were in too many cases not being observed;

2) clerics were all too often neglecting their spiritual duties and as a result failing to exhort the laity to observe theirs;

3) the most basic rules regarding the administration of the sacraments were quite simply being flouted;

4) heretics and teachers of heresy were actually claiming to be members of the one true Church?

And well might our visitor so conclude and also conclude that this age is so very fortunate in having John Paul II as pope. For in him we have a pope who is inspired by the Holy Spirit to recognize the errors of our age and brave enough to do something about it. When bishops fail to observe instructions given them by the Pope on the occasion of their ad limina visits, what can the Pope do? Well, he can do what bishops should be doing in the first place and that is visit the neglected flocks and do the teaching himself. In so doing he gives the lie to those who try to insinuate that Rome is quite content with the condition of the Church in North America. He gives the lie to those who suggest that concern with proper administration of the sacraments is concern with minutiae. If the Holy Father were content, he would be only too happy to stay in the Vatican and attend to his heavy enough duties there.

Of course there are some brave, orthodox, and loyal bishops in the United States. The great Cardinal O'Connor is one among several who come to mind. Note his reaction to the scandalous suggestion that youths be instructed in the use of condoms and the steps he took immediately to dissociate the archdiocese of New York from the very idea. Would that more bishops were of his determined bravery.

The Holy Father, being a kind man, speaks softly and patiently. Others, possibly less charitably, see no reason why blunt words should not be used when the situation calls for bluntness. A whole generation has gone by during which the laity has suffered silently. The experience of Arianism proved once and for all that the laity have a duty to act when the hierarchy refuse to do so.

Bishops of Canada, be brave as our Holy Father is brave.

Letter Number Three

TO ABSTAIN OR NOT TO ABSTAIN

Bishops of Canada, we, the laity, being in a state of utter confusion on a matter of conscience, beg leave to approach your Excellencies in order that you might inform us clearly regarding the law on the matter of Friday abstinence as it applies in this country.

It would not be fair to charge us with stubborness or stupidity in failing to make sense of what we have gleaned from the newspapers and announcements from the pulpit and parish bulletins over the years, as these have been contradictory in the extreme. The reasons for our confusion are many.

It was some twenty years ago that we were first informed by the press that your Excellencies at a meeting in Ottawa had announced that henceforth we were not to consider ourselves bound by the law of abstinence or fasting on any day of the year. Those who endeavored to learn whether or not this extraordinary announcement might be true discovered that actually Your Excellencies had promulgated a four-page pastoral letter exhorting the faithful in the strongest possible terms over three and a half pages to do penance by abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year. The letter did finish, however, by informing us that while we were bound to do penance we were no longer bound to do so by abstaining or fasting. In other words where before we practised the twin virtues of Penance and Obedience on Fridays by partaking of a boiled egg and a slice of bread, henceforth such action would only be an exercise in Penance. So far so good, but some of us wondered on hearing reports from other countries. It appeared that in the United States of America things were not so simple - one had still to abstain on Fridays in Lent. Then Pope Paul VI in his weekly allocutions spoke of a universal law requiring as an absolute minimum abstinence on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Doubts arose in our collective breasts. Did the good bishops of Canada have the authority to act as they had done? One ran to those whom prudence suggested were possessed of sufficient knowledge and training to give an answer to the question. Horror of horrors, one received quite conflicting answers in that some authorities said yes and others said no. Now one was then possessed of a doubtful conscience in the matter and in danger of acquiring either a lax conscience or worse a vincibly erroneous conscience. What to do? Why, just heed the exhortations of Your Excellencies and abstain on Fridays as in the past and hope that in good time all might become clear. It did become difficult though trying to explain things when invited to dine on Fridays by non-Catholics. One was reduced to suggesting that because of eccentricity one found it difficult to give up old customs. Of course, one was careful not actually to lie when conveying this idea.

In God's good time yet another revision of Canon Law came into effect with the beginning of advent in 1983. Canon 1251 seems clear enough - abstinence is to be observed on all Fridays and Ash Wednesday and fasting is to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. But wait, Canon 1253 allows an episcopal conference to substitute other forms of penance for fasting and abstinence. Did Your Excellencies actually do so and if so in accord with the spirit and letter of Canon 1253?

We suggest that as a practical matter it is simply not possible for one to get a clear answer on this point. One parish bulletin says one must abstain on Fridays in Lent, another on all Fridays, and another that one is not really bound at all. Sometimes we are told by the clergy that even if we are bound to abstinence that not to abstain is only a venial sin. At other times we are told that it is a serious obligation and thus a mortal sin wilfully not to abstain.

Now Canon 1253 says an episcopal conference can substitute another form of penance for abstinence on Friday. Strictly speaking, the Canadian episcopal conference has done no such thing. It has said merely that we ourselves "may substitute special acts of charity or piety on this day" without saying which act or acts. This is to reduce the provision of Canon 1253 to absurdity. With all respect, it would seem to follow that Your Excellencies have told us that if we give five cents to a beggar on a Friday we are excused from abstinence. Or else we are being told that if we abstain from eating bacon on Friday morning we have performed an act of piety and thus are entitled that very day to eat a nice beefsteak at both lunch and dinner and even tea-time for that matter. The confusion abounds to such an extent that in the diocese of one of Your Excellencies the poor confused pastors and confessors descended on the vice-chancellor and begged for yet another clarification. The dear man being caught promised an answer by letter. The circular letter which came at last was composed with such circumlocution and vagueness that its meaning was not easy to discern. The best interpretation one can put on it is that it repeats what Rome says, then what Ottawa says, and then leaves each pastor to make up his own mind.

Given the confusion that prevails at the level of pastors, is it to be wondered that the poor benighted laity can't even begin to form their consciences in this matter? A possible explanation, again with all respect to Your Excellencies is that knowing that so many of us have quite given up any form of abstinence, having acquired erroneous consciences, Your Lordships hesitate to inform us properly, fearing that we lack the necessary moral stamina to act in accordance with the Church's laws. If that is the case, trust us, we beseech you one and all. Send missionaries all over the country to preach the spirit of Penance and inform us truly as to the law. Your Excellencies could well be pleasantly surprised at the results of any effort to bring order out of the present chaos.

Letter Number Four

IMPURITY AND ABORTION

One hundred and eight years ago Leo XIII in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae on Christian Marriage urged bishops of the whole world to:

"take care not to spare your efforts and authority in bringing about that among the people committed to your guidance that doctrine may be preserved whole and unadulterated which Christ the Lord and the apostles, the interpreters of the divine will have handed down, and which the Catholic Church herself has religiously preserved, and commanded to be observed by the faithful of every age."

Thus the immortal words of the great Leo XIII.

Then in 1930 in his encyclical Casti Connubii Pius XI spoke these immortal words:

"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. 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...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..."

Thirty-eight years later Paul VI spoke his immortal words in virtue of the mandate entrusted to him by Christ in part as follows: "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life". And then, addressing himself to priests, bishops, and teachers of moral theology, he added that their first task is to expound the Church's teaching on marriage without ambiguity.

We see then a chain of popes over four generations exhorting bishops in the strongest words at their command to promulgate God's teaching in the matter of the virtue of Holy Purity in the married state.

How well have bishops in North America heeded these repeated exhortations?

As impurity leads to hardness of heart, is it possible that there is some connection between the decline in preaching on Holy Purity and the catastrophic increase in the number of abortions?

Bishops of Canada do pay heed to the urgings of four generations of popes and insist that the truths of Humanae vitae be preached. Would not such action prove a most effective means of combating the evil of abortion?

Bishops of Canada, be brave as our Holy Father is brave.

Letter Number Five

IMPURITY AND HARDNESS OF HEART

Abortion is a crime. Our criminal code says as much, save in the exceptional circumstance of a baby becoming a danger to his mother's health. Actually such a possibility is so remote as hardly to warrant even statistical notice. As well, abortion is contrary to God's law. This truth has been proclaimed both before and since the dawn of Christianity.

Given that Canada considers itself a Christian country, (indeed about half its population is at least Catholic in name), how surprising it is then that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in effect that a notorious back-street-abortionist need not fear the legal consequences of his crimes.

Just as it is true that a country has the leaders it deserves, so is it true that it receives the justice it deserves.

The surprising inference is that in general Canadians are quite complacent at abortion being available on demand. This seems to be confirmed by the polls - especially in Quebec, once the most Catholic part of the country. How can this be possible?

On July 25th, 1988 we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the promulgation of Humane vitae, the encyclical which declared infallibly that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. And here lies a clue to the mystery of a Christian country opening its arms to abortion, for the same encyclical enjoins priests and bishops to "expound the Church's teaching on marriage without ambiguity". Now to expound means to explain, interpret, and set forth a doctrine in detail - mark you, in detail. Well, Gentle Reader, how much expounding of the intrinsic evils of the onanism and artificial contraception have you received from the pulpit these past twenty years? None, you say. Well, your experience is similar to that of a great many of us. On the other hand, Dear Reader, how many times have you heard the suggestion that contraception might not be such a bad thing after all? To judge from the remarks of John Paul II, on September 16th, 1987 to the U.S. bishops, it is his view that there has been quite too much disseminating of heretical, dissenting teaching on the subject of conjugal morality and hardly enough expounding of true morality.

And what has been the result of all this? Why, impurity of course. And from impurity follows hardness of heart. It takes a hard heart indeed to co-operate in abortion and even to tolerate it.

To their credit a number of our bishops now are agitating against the Supreme Court decision and are encouraging political action to the end that laws be passed to protect the unborn. With all respect this is failing to recognize that the basic problem is lack of respect for Holy Purity. Win the war against impurity and gain victory in the war against abortion. Those who use means of contraception become in time indifferent to the evil of abortion. Thus it is Purity that must be preached. Years of toleration of the erroneous view that artificial contraception is not really too great an evil must now be offset by years and years of preaching the truths of Humanae vitae. Two generations of the faithful have been fed scorpions of lies when they were but asking for loaves of truth. Too many consciences have been allowed to fall into error. That is why abortion has won such acceptance in this once Christian country.

Bishops of Canada, be as brave as martyrs. Be as brave as the Holy Father. Exhort your clergy to preach Purity. In this way abortion can be conquered.

Letter Number Six

SEX EDUCATION AND
THE CORRUPTING OF LITTLE CHILDREN

The Institute for Catholic Education recently isued a publication entitled "Aids Education A Pamphlet for Parents". The Education Commission of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops has, it appears, blessed this publication with its seal of approval. One might well consider how many of our Ontario bishops are actually aware of their having granted vicarious approval to this little pamphlet. One might also wonder if a single Ontario bishop sits on the Education Commission.

That the Government of Ontario insists that sexual education in general and Aids education in particular be provided in the public schools, both Protestant and Catholic (after all the separate schools are just as public as the public schools), is quite in keeping with the mistaken point of view that to introduce the very young to information on sex is to prepare them for life by providing antidotes to sexual abuse, defence against venereal diseases, and information regarding contraceptive devices.

The Church in its wisdom knows better than that. Given the Church's practical experience in the matters of original sin and concupiscence it has warned over the millennia of the dangers of explaining in detail or at length of modes of sexual abuse. The Church, wise mother that she is, has always been aware that such explanations serve rather to inflame passion than to generate modesty and purity.

It is shocking enough to learn then that the Ontario Bishops have approved a course on Aids for our little ones, but to be told as well that they are to be instructed in the use of the condom is really too much. This policy is quite against the tradition of the Church - a tradition which holds it to be wiser to seize on the fear engendered by venereal contagion to stress the need for proper moral conduct and that it is wholly immoral to suggest even the use of so-called preventives. Actually the truth of the matter is that it is far better for mankind to have a few more million people contract syphilis or Aids than have wholesale debasement of character and moral degeneration arising from the encouragement of prophylactics. And let us not fool ourselves. To mention even the word condoms in a classroom is to encourage their use.

Actually, why should the existence of Aids be taught our children at all? Like syphilis and gonorrhea, Aids is a venereal disease. Venereal disease holds neither terrors nor dangers for the virtuous and chaste. As syphilis and gonorrhea are generally divine chastisements for the heterosexually impure, so does Aids chastise sodomites. So what sense is there in speaking of it to young girls? Now one can understand in time of war generals of armies being fearful of their troops acquiring loathsome venereal diseases from camp followers and thus ordering medical corps personnel to instruct the troops regarding the dangers they face if they misbehave while on leave. Soldiers brought down by disease are pretty useless in combat. It is an exaggerated fear to conclude that what might be suitable for grown men approaching combat is appropriate for high school students. The young should be exhorted to be chaste rather than be exposed to the mechanics of impurity.

Bishops of Ontario, we thank you for having published your "Aids Education Pamphlet for Parents". We have received fair warning. We will arrange for our little ones not to attend your grubby little anti-sex lessons on venereal diseases, sodomy, contraceptive devices and the like. After all, it is our God-given duty to protect them and thus keep them pure and undefiled.

Letter Number Seven

THE CANADIAN DISSENT TO HUMANAE VITAE

While July 26, 1988 fell twenty years to the day after the promulgation by Pope Paul VI of the encyclical "Humanae vitae," the anniversary passed with little or no comment either in the daily press or even from the pulpits. This was in marked contrast to the lively reactions which greeted the encyclical's initial publication. Some of these reactions took the form of what were then called clarifications and were issued by Conferences of Bishops of various countries. At the time it was never explained what as clear cut a statement as "every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" needed by way of clarification. Newspaper writers, trained as they are to seize on the slightest controversy, chose to label these clarifications as dissents. Quite understandably the Bishops' feelings were hurt at the suggestion that any statement of theirs could be interpreted as indicating less than total support for a papal encyclical. Be that as it may, one would perhaps not be lacking in charity were one to suggest that some of the clarifications were at the very least slightly flawed in expression.

Time passes, better judgement prevails, and at long last the bishops of Austria, out of respect for the intelligence for their faithful and no doubt because of some judicious prompting by the present successor to Pope Paul VI, have issued a 1988 clarification of their 1968 clarification of Humanae vitae. This rather startling development took place in April 1988 without apparently meriting the notice or comment of the North American press - but then possibly it was not sufficiently controversial. The Austrian bishops described their latest announcement as "a necessary correction" to the one of 1968. Actually their first "explanation" of Humanae vitae was composed in terms so very ambiguous that the Austrian faithful could just possibly be pardoned for understanding it to mean that artificial contraception was not really so great an evil after all. The correction was long overdue, as after all there are now more abortions than births each year in once-Catholic Austria.

Will other countries follow the example set by Austria? It is to be devoutly hoped that such will prove to be the case. What joy there would be amongst the angels of heaven should the bishops of Canada, for instance, decide in unison to denounce their Winnipeg statement of September 27th, 1968. Well, if not denounce at least clarify. Clarification it has always needed. One perceptive commentator of the time remarked that it was worded so awkwardly as truly to defy rational analysis.

A reason often advanced in justification for the wretched vagueness of the Winnipeg statement is that the authors wished in charity to adopt a pastoral approach to the subject. One might well wonder just what that might have meant, as to express the wish at all was to show total lack of appreciation of the wholly pastoral and merciful side to Humanae vitae. Pope Paul VI made it abundantly clear that penitents confessing time and again to sins of onanism and the like were never to be deprived of absolution on the grounds of recidivism, but were to be granted absolution every time and continually exhorted to resort to the sacraments to find the grace necessary to resist falling into sin.

Which approach is truly pastoral and thus the one to be used by a good shepherd? The one that says in effect that to develop an erroneous conscience and keep sinning or is it the one that says come to confession and go to communion and in time you will be vouchsafed grace to avoid sin?

Let us face the truth. The Winnipeg statement of 1968 has caused grievous embarrassment to clergy and laity since the day of its publication. If only our bishops in Canada could find the courage to follow the example of the Austrian hierarchy and themselves issue "a necessary correction".

Letter Number Eight

THE WINNIPEG STATEMENT AND
ITS INEVITABLE RETRACTION

The Austrian bishops have done their duty. Dare one hope that Canadian bishops will emulate the courageous example set by their confrères in Vienna? In April 1988, the Austrian bishops, at long last, found the necessary gumption to issue a public retraction of their dissent from the teachings of Pope Paul VI as enunciated so clearly in the encyclical Humanae vitae. In this country, on a sad day in September 1968, our bishops chose to dissent also, to the great distress of lay people loyal to the magisterium, by issuing what has come to be called the Winnipeg Statement. When will our bishops retract their dissent? It is more than time that they did.

In September 1987, speaking in Los Angeles, our present Pope explained the absurdity of the position of those who maintain that it is possible to dissent from the teaching of the Church on a matter of sexual morality. Pope John Paul II did not mince his words. He categorized the holding of such a silly view as "a grave error." He went on to make it clear that anyone holding to such an error had by the very fact raised "an obstacle to the recption of the sacraments" for "dissent from church doctrine remains what it is, dissent; as such it may not be proposed or received on an equal footing with the Church's authentic teaching." One who dissents then is quite simply not worthy to receive the sacraments.

A year later when addressing some four hundred theologians at the Pontifical Lateran University on November 12th, 1988, our great Pope used, if possible, even stronger language when he declared that "calling...into question" the "moral perspective of Humanae vitae is equivalent to refusing God himself the obedience of our intelligence" and "thereby falling into the darkness of error."

It happens that to this day some of our bishops, and even archbishops, still maintain that the Winnipeg Statement does not dissent from the teaching of Humanae vitae. Well, the Pope also said in part on November 12th, 1988: "By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it does not admit exception." In contrast to this lucidly clear sentence let one note the turgid and deliberate obfuscation of the scabrous paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement. The paragraph reads:

"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."

At the time this paragraph 26 was derided by some lovers of the English language as quite defying rational analysis. All the same, in the first place, who can "in good conscience" deny that the paragraph consciously and deliberately dissented from the Church's teaching? Secondly, who can fail to see how it succeeded in inducing erroneous consciences throughout our poor benighted country?

Will the Canadian bishops follow the so-brave example of the Austrian bishops and renounce their dissent to Humanae vitae? For the present it appears that loyal lay people must keep praying and praying hard for such a thing to happen. During the autumn of 1988 the good Catholic people of Toronto were invited by their Archdiosesan authorities to attend a day long series of conferences advertised as being held to celebrate the twentieth anniversay of the promulgation of Humanae vitae. With what hope did the good Catholic people of Toronto turn out in acceptance of the invitation, their collective hearts pounding with joy at the thought that maybe some bishops at least were prepared to change their minds and accept the teaching of Humnae vitae. It was not to be. The good Catholic people of Toronto were fooled, as the event turned out to be, of all things, a celebration of the anniversary of the Winnipeg Statement. One priest lecturer even boasted of his dissent in July 1968 to Humanae vitae. One of the bishops present, with the silent assent of the other, made it quite clear to the lay people present that they simply saw no reason to retract the dissent. At this the good Catholic people of Toronto reacted with evident and very vocal distress. Obviously one must keep praying and hoping, having as we do our Blessed Lord's promise that in circumstances such as these He will not abandon us.

On the occasion of the publication of the Winnipeg Statement a masterfully written critique, exposing its every error and sophistry, was prepared by a domestic prelate of considerable experience and stature. This publisher is prepared to make available a reprint of this critique free of charge to any bishop who would like a copy.

Letter Number Nine

NEGLECTED RESPONSIBILITIES

The case of Father André Guindon, of St. Paul's University, Ottawa, had been under study by the Vatican for some six years when on January 30th, 1992, the Doctrinal Congregation charged the priest with fundamental errors in teaching on premarital sex, homosexuality, and contraception, and required him to make a public declaration, bringing his positions into harmony with Church teaching. Father Guindon died without having done so.

Now have the Faithful, dependent as they are on direction, guidance, and help, ever once received warning from any one bishop the length and breadth of our countrty that the teachings of Father Guindon were temerarious, dangerous, false, offensive, and a danger to the Faith? As you are well aware, dear Reader, our bishops have failed utterly and totally in this regard to live up to the responsibilities they assumed when they agreed to be consecrated bishops in the first place. Now what are these responsibilities? They are to be solicitous for all Christ's Faithful entrusted to their care and to do so by teaching and illustrating to the Faithful the truths of Faith which are to be believed. Then they are firmly to defend the integrity and unity of the Faith. They are bound to foster discipline and observance of all ecclesiastical laws. They must ensure that no abuses occur in the ministry of the word, that is in preaching and teaching. Is it consistent with these duties, which are clearly spelled out in Canon Law, that priests and religious be allowed by their bishops to teach contrary to the truths of the Faith, to attack the integrity and unity of the Faith, to make a mockery of church laws, and thereby try to lead the faithful into sinful practices? Over the past thirty years our bishops have made no very apparent effort to do their duty in this regard. Are they afraid to do so? But are not bishops supposed to be men of courage who would die for the faith should that be required? Actually when the infamous Father Gregory Baum allowed and encouraged the Globe and Mail to publish an interview with him under the headline "Catholics May Use Contraceptives Now" on Holy Saturday morning in 1966, his superior took no public action at all. Of course what should have been done, and very promptly too, was to dismiss Father Baum from the clerical state and then cause a pastoral letter to be read from every pulpit in the Toronto archdiocese at every Mass on the following day, Easter Sunday morning, explaining that because of his scandalous behaviour Father Baum could no longer function as a priest and that his opinions on moral matters were to be given no credence whatsoever. If only such a statement had been meted out at the appropriate time both to Father Baum and to Father Guindon, far less harm would have been done to consciences and many more souls might have been saved.

In passing it might be noted that with the passage of time, and for one reason and another, the poor misguided Father Baum has been reduced to the lay state. However, quite contrary to Church discipline Father Baum still dares to call himself a theologian and, advertised as such, he accepted recently an invitation from a Catholic church in Toronto there to give a lecture.

It must be very embarrassing for Ottawans to have driven home to them the fact that conditions in their archdiocese are in such a perilous state that the Pope himself has had to intervene because the one responsible for maintaining good order lacked the gumption to act in line with his God-given duty. After all, not long ago they were treated to the truly extraordinary experience of having the Pope send his legate into their midst to reprove Father Guindon publicly for his errors and instruct him without further delay to retract his heresies. All the while Archbishop Gervais was standing by watching and listening but doing nothing on his own authority to bring Father Guindon to his senses and to make him submit to the Church's teaching.

Can we find in Canada one, two, three, or four bishops who accept whole-heartedly the teaching of Casti connubii and Humanae vitae? Would it be stretching hope too far to trust that it would be possible to count up to say a round dozen or so, out of the seventy-five odd bishops we have, who are totally loyal to the magisterium. If so one might well wonder why they remain so mute in defense of the faith. One might well ask how it is that not one of any number of dissenting priests has been corrected publicly for the edification and instruction of the faithful.

Then, too, those dissenting members of the clergy should not be allowed to claim that their dissent is somehow, contrary to the rules of logic, loyal. As the Pope made so clear, on September 16th, 1987 in Los Angeles, dissent remains dissent and thus poses an obstacle to the reception of the sacraments and is totally incompatible with being Catholic. A dissenting priest then may not say Mass. In other words a dissenter is a protester, that is, a protestant. A protestant is not a Catholic. Is that the situation in which some of our bishops find themselves? One does wonder. Surely those few of our bishops who are not dissenters, or at least are not sympathetic to the cause of the dissenters, should be able with a little bit of prayer to find the courage to rebuke publicly any dissenters under their jurisdiction.

These letters might just draw a rebuke from one or two of our bishops. If so, how incongruous that a plea for orthodoxy be condemned while heterodoxy receives assent through silence.

Saint Catherine of Sienna, rebuker of bishops, pray for us.

EPILOGUE

The letters here numbered one to seven originally were third to ninth in order of published appearance. For the sake of presenting a more complete record and just possibly to satisfy the natural curiosity of some dear reader we append below the text of the first two letters in their original blunt succinctness.

The first letter:

Bishops of Canada, take heart, prenez courage, and give yet greater support to the Holy Father,
and Vicar on Earth of Our Lord.

The second letter:

Bishops of Canada and Archbishops too, Do be brave be brave do. The time has come to teach and preach Humanae Vitae clearly, constantly, consistently, unambigously, unequivocally and in full conformity and communion with Rome.

Remember the duty to promote the salvation of the souls of all the laity entrusted to your care. Be brave as our Holy Father is brave.