The Winnipeg Statement
Around this time last year, John Corapi was suggesting that the American Catholic Church’s attendance woes were connected to the quality of leadership in the American Catholic Church over the past three or four decades. To Corapi, a significant instance of failed leadership was found in the response of a number of bishops, priests and theologians to the identification that the employment of artificial methods of birth control was an unqualified evil. Corapi specifically identified the Winnipeg Statement (the episcopal response of the Canadian Catholic Bishops to Humanae vitae) as “rebellion” and as having “categorically rejected Humanae vitae.” So far as I know, Corapi never apologized for this untruth.
More recently I have noticed a Vox Nova reader, and occasional commenter, one Julian Barkin, suggesting that the Canadian Bishops “screwed up royally” with the Winnipeg Statement. The text “gave a symbolic ‘middle finger’ to the magisterium and Paul VI,” while its authors, the Canadian Bishops, “basically defied the authority of Rome by disacknowledging” Humanae Vitae. Apparently, the Winnipeg Statement is responsible for having “allowed a host of sexual evils to occur in society,” and the authors of the text showed “great disobedience to their Holy Father.”
Absolute nonsense.
In my experience, without exception, contemporary conversation surrounding the 1968 Winnipeg Statement reflects a lack of awareness regarding the Statement’s actual claims. Thus, while it is a pity that Corapi’s entrance into such a conversation could not have been coupled with a familiarity of the document’s content, it is not a surprise. Here, now, Mr. Barkin joins Mr. Corapi as company.
Most controversial is Paragraph 26 of the Statement, and its assertion that individuals who have tried sincerely, but without success, to keep the directives of the Church, may safely be assured that “whosoever honestly chooses that course of action which seems right to him does so in good conscience.” Paragraph 17 had reminded Canadian Catholics that those who find the Church’s teaching on contraception either “extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own” should “not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful.” Instead of shying away from such a text, let my identify that its substance informs two of my own previous posts (Disagreement Shouldn’t Motivate Departure & Real Union Still Exists in Disagreement).
Such comments are not made in isolation, and are prefaced by the importance of a properly formed conscience. The Canadian Bishops note that though the dignity of the human person lies in the ability to achieve fulfilment in God through the exercise of free choice (paragraph 9) this does not exempt a person from the responsibility of forming his or her conscience according to Christian values and principles. A person’s exercise of free choice is to be open to the teachings of the Church, and any selfishness or undue external pressures in the person’s motives must be expunged (10). The Canadian Bishops recognize that the free human person is prone to sin and evil and must humbly ask for the grace of God to prevent this freedom from leading to abuse (10). Quoting Paragraph 50 of Lumen gentium, the Canadian Bishops state that a person must offer “cheerful readiness” to hear what the Church has to say (11), for true freedom is not synonymous with the ability to do as one likes (11), but rather is found in doing what the responsible conscience directs (11). Turning to Humanae vitae, the Catholic is to examine honestly what Pope Paul VI has said, for the Church is the human person’s guide in the pilgrimage of achieving final happiness. The Church is teacher “even in those matters which do not demand the absolute assent of faith (14).” Relying on Paragraph 25 of Lumen gentium, the Canadian Bishops assert that the Church’s teaching is to be acknowledged with reverence, and judgements made are to be strictly adhered to, in both mind and will (15).
This is that “symbolic ‘middle finger’” to Pope Paul, and this is the “great disobedience” to the Holy Father?
In my opinion, the Winnipeg Statement, when compared with the American or German episcopal conferences (to name just two), is rather “moderate.” Where the Canadian Bishops do not question the authenticity of the condemnation made in Humanae vitae, the German Bishops assert that one reason individuals may have difficulty assenting to certain propositions is because such propositions are themselves in error. Where the American response “On Human Life” provides ways for public expression of dissent, the Canadian Bishops do not, and instead suggest that to do so would compound confusion and be a source of scandal (16).”
And yet, they, the Canadian Bishops have somehow “basically defied the authority of Rome by disacknowledging” Humanae Vitae, and are responsible for having “allowed a host of sexual evils to occur in society” as a result of their Statement?
Avery Dulles has written that in light of episcopal responses like the American and German ones, it “now seems impossible to deny that dissent from the non-infallible magisterium is sometimes licit.” To deny such licety, he wrote, would “be to dissent from the teachings of these documents.” If the legitimacy of such episcopal responses can be accepted, one wonders precisely on what grounds the Winnipeg Statement is to be rejected (as it is more moderate, in my opinion).
The matter of dissent does not feature in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and yet, with regards to Lumen gentium, something very relevant can be discerned from the Theological Commission’s reply to an emendation proposed by three bishops who “invoke a particular case, which is at least theoretically possible, in which a certain learned person, in the face of doctrine that has not been infallibly proposed, cannot, for well founded reasons, give his internal assent.” The response given is that the approved theological treatises should be consulted.
Francis Sullivan sees in such a response the Theological Commission’s awareness that the manuals of theology did treat the question of dissent. Sullivan quotes Ludwig Lercher who describes the most frequent way the Church may be protected from error (the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Holy Father), but then also notes that “it is not unthinkable that the error (on part of the Church) should be excluded by the Holy Spirit in this way: that the subjects [of the Church] recognize the decree to be erroneous and cease to give their assent to it.”
A good deal more could be said, but I hope it is apparent that people like Mr. Corapi or Mr. Barkin are quite simply mistaken in their evaluation of this text. Criticisms can be made, but the Canadian Bishops did just the opposite of what persons like Mr. Corapi or Mr. Barkin allege. The Canadian Bishops gave their own assent to Humanae vitae and informed Canadian Catholics that their own consciences were to be formed in the light of Humanae vitae.
The Canadian Bishops were rebellious? They categorically rejected Humanae vitae? They gave the Pope a “symbolic ‘middle finger’”?
Here’s one more: The Winnipeg Statement should be retracted? How about persons like Mr. Corapi, and Mr. Barkin, model this retraction business by beginning with their own untruths about the Winnipeg Statement.
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Besides Vox Nova, he writes at his blog Musings.
Comments are closed.
Regardless of how you want to classify it (or point out others’ “misclassifications”), the bottom line is that the Winnipeg statement is wrong.
I think what we have to consider is that we are talking about sin. Sin, in any form, causes us spiritual harm and Christ seeks to liberate us from it. So, in my opinion, the danger of some of the content in the Winnipeg Statement is that it relativizes the gravity of that sin.
For example, rather than the issue of a couple having sexual intercourse knowing they are interfering with God’s natural plan for life, let’s take an example of some other sin of sexual misconduct … say, pedophilia.
Imagine if the bishops said, “Pedophiles who have tried sincerely, but without success, to keep the directives of the Church, may safely be assured that whosoever honestly chooses that course of action which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”
or
“Catholics who find the Church’s teaching on pedophila either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful.”
Teachings of Theology of the Body have set us free from the bonds of sin in relation to human sexuality. Why should we want ANYONE to remain entrapt in that sin? We should seek to help others liberate themselves from those chains; not say “Oh, well, they can’t help themselves.”
Hello Calgarian. Thanks for stopping by.
Your bottom line is that Winnipeg Statement is wrong, and I am not suggesting that the text is above criticism. What I note, however, in my opening post, is how the contemporary conversations surrounding the Winnipeg Statement consistently (in my experience) reflect a lack of awareness regarding the Statement’s actual claims. The claims of Mr. Corapi, and Mr. Barkin, reflect this ignorance.
So, this post is an episode in truth-telling. I have attempted to faithfully identify the contents of this Statement, and in doing so I hope to have shown the poverty of the characterizations made by Corapi & Barkin, and anyone else wishing to parrot such statements.
It seems to me that we can only really get to discussing the conclusion you have drawn (that the Winnipeg Statement is wrong) when we become familiar with the contents of the text. It is apparent to me that I cannot discuss with Corapi or Barkin the conclusion you have drawn until I am convinced they are familiar with the contents of the text. If they were familiar with the contents of the text, they wouldn’t be making the claims they are making (although it’s possible they might still come to the conclusion you have).
Does this help indicate the direction I would like to see this conversation take?
I have read the Winnipeg Statement, however in fairness to your interest in discussion, I will re-read it so it is fresh in my mind.
I do not want to categorize the bishops’ intent as all bad, I do think however that some things said (such as in Paragraph 26, as you point out) SHOULD require a second look from the bishops. Without any redressing of the topic, what is said there still stands to date, and this is what I find concerning.
However, I WILL take a look at the Statement again in order to discuss this further.
It would be interesting to see the German bishops statement. Anyone have an English translation of it to hand ?
God Bless
Chris, the letter is not the easiest to find in English as its dissemination occurred in a semi-private manner, and in the German language. Having said this, I know of two sources:
1) Karl Rahner, `The Dispute Concerning the Church`s Teaching Office` in “Theological Investigations,“ vol. 14 (New York: Crossroad, 1982), pp. 85-88.
2) `Document of the German Bishops Addressed to All Members of the Church Who are Commissioned to Preach the Faith,` in “Readings in Moral Theology,“ no. 6 [Dissent in the Church] (Manwah: Paulist Press, 1988), pp. 129-132.
I hope this helps…
let’s take an example of some other sin of sexual misconduct … say, pedophilia.
Calgarian,
Except they weren’t writing about pedophilia. They were writing about contraception.
Also, “whosoever honestly chooses that course of action which seems right to him does so in good conscience” is obviously true. It almost strikes me as tautological.
Yes, on both counts.
To choose the most egregious sexual sin one can think of as a point of comparison is to undermine one’s own efforts because as soon as the reader notes that pedophilia is worse than artificial contraception they give themselves permission not to see what actually holds in the analogy. Better to pick something less inflammatory if one wants to be heard.
But not “almost tautological,” clearly tautological! ;)
Calgarian,
Are you saying bopping a ten year is a similar sin to using a rubber?
As usual, way to keep it classy.
However, if you are looking for a bottom line answer, then yes. Both are mortal sins and will send you to hell if not repented.
Calgarian
Your version of slippery slope was not believable. Fathers Karl Rahner and Bernard Haring, two of the best theologians of the 20th century, dissented against Humanae Vitae and no Pope censured them. Popes censured Hans Kung and Charles Curran for wider purposes. And Rahner and Haring urged laity to follow prayerful studious consciences. Mafia people know that pedaphilia is evil so the comparion fails.
It’s very simple. It’s a disputed area amongst very intelligent Church figures and that means an ex cathedra statement would be the perfect solution…it settles the disputed… but do you see Benedict working on an ex cathedra treatment if birth control? No…he’s on his third book on the NT. And he knows an ex cathedra encyclical would settle birth control but I suspect he is not sure either. Two of the most prominent figures in the tradition were two ex fornicators….Augustine and Jerome. Do we seek out ex alcoholics for advice on moderate drinking? Why did Jerome approve of the Stoic view of intercourse which the natural methods reject…(.sex is only moral when procreation is willed). Jerome called Seneca…”our Seneca”. Guess what…..Seneca believed in infanticide besides believing in stoic concepts of intercourse.
Did you see John Paul II working on an ex cathedra piece on it? No. John Paul probably tried his shortcut and the Bishops didn’t bite as they did in Evangelium Vitae on abortion, euthanasia and killing the innocent where they answered a worldwide polling by him on various subjects by which he was able to declare infallibility with them as a group wherever they said yes which is a legitimate circumvention of ex cathedra. But EV also dealt with birth control but had no accompanying infallibly worded section citing all the world’s bishops on birth control but it did have such sections for abortion, euthanasia and killing the innocent. Ergo Bishop unanimity probably does not exist even now on birth control. No Pope wants to work infallibly on it because there are problems: Augustine was wrong and led Aquinas to be wrong on several sexual matters: both held Mary to have contracted original sin because Augustine said Mary’s parents enjoyed the sex that produced Mary and that oassed on the sin; bith were wrong on the venial sin nature of asking for the marriage debt without explicitly willing procreation. The obvious question then is…what else were they wrong on that involved sex?
I remember hearing language like that which you critique about the Winnipeg Statement before I read it, but when I actually did read it, I found the rhetoric didn’t match the reality.
Something like, “whosoever honestly chooses that course of action which seems right to him does so in good conscience,” is clearly tautological. And it’s not saying anything that every Catholic ethicist doesn’t already know.
The problem with the Winnipeg Statement, it seems to me, is not so much content, but context. It became a pretext for people who never read it to reject Church teaching quite casually. Though it itself talked about the necessity of forming consciences, it ended up being used precisely to avoid such formation. Many people who never read Church documents were simply told (in the confessional or elsewhere) to follow their consciences without getting any rigorous sense of what that actually entails. In fact, when “follow your conscience” becomes code for, “do what you were going to do in any case” its meaning becomes precisely reversed. Conscience is a gadfly, not a balm.
The widespread use of artificial contraception has, in my view, had disastrous effects for the Church and for society, but it’s not because of what the Winnipeg Statement says. Let’s face it, artificial contraception was going to be widely used no matter what the Canadian bishops said. On the other hand, it is distinctly possible that fewer Canadian Catholics would have used artificial contraception if the basic stance of the national episcopate had been robust support of Church teaching rather than looking slightly embarrassed by it.
The thing about Church documents is that very few people read them. What is likely to become the public perception is the bottom line. And the bottom line in the Winnipeg Statement was that one could dissent, so that became the document’s identity. It’s not exactly accurate, or at least it’s not the whole story, but that’s how it played out. I think the Canadian episcopate has learned from this, given their more recent treatment of the topic.
In any case, I am unaware of the Church ever retracting documents. We don’t retract. We hermeneuticize! See Pascendi.
Also, why it became the poster child for dissent rather than the other (German and American) responses you mention is beyond me. Anyone know anything about that?
You might be referring to the “Koenigsteiner Erklaerung” of the german bishops
http://www.kathpedia.com/index.php?title=Königsteiner_Erklärung_(Wortlaut)
A crude english Google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.kathpedia.com/index.php%3Ftitle%3DK%25C3%25B6nigsteiner_Erkl%25C3%25A4rung&ei=qo-KTrzKI4nfgQebq6zNAw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKoenigsteiner%2Berklaerung%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Dimvns
It might be just a matter of perception, Brett. You and I are Canadian, as is Julian. Mr. Corapi was speaking in Winnipeg when he made his claims, and probably first heard about the document when he was being transported to the speaking venue.
I wouldn’t imagine they’re talking about the Winnipeg Statement too much elsewhere. We are familiar with it in a way that others arent because certain Canadian Catholic malcontents, already suspicious of the Canadian Bishops, believe the Statement is responsible for about every ill that has happened since. There is plenty enough opportunity for these voices to spread this misinformation…
Opposition to the Statement has almost become a caricature. I remember reading a letter to the editor somewhere inquiring as to why Msgr. Foy (a critic of the Statement) had forgotten to attribute the Vietnam War to the Winnipeg Statement. The person was joking, naturally, but you can tell what he was getting at.
I do not think the Statement is above criticism, but I think it’s time, if we are going to talk about it, to truthfully engage with its comments.
Fully agreed re: the Winnipeg Statement having problems and our inability to address those problems if we don’t pay attention to what it actually says.
Re: the Winnipeg Statement’s impact outside of Canada, I don’t know. They had a real go with me over at The American Catholic awhile back about Father Rosica and LSN, and many there seemed familiar with it, at least as poster-child. I didn’t get the impression they’d read it.
We don’t retract. We hermeneuticize!
That. Is. Awesome. I’m now imagining a possible SNL skit about the Church.
Ha!
“Conscience is a gadfly, not a balm”.
I love it!! Please don’t hermeneuticize it…
Kelly,
All quite interesting Catholic moral hermeneutics. And I think maybe I even remember Charlie Curran mentioning this Winnipeg Statement in class in 1985. But keep in mind that whatever is said, this is the same Magisterium whose head, Pope Benedict, condemned the use of condoms to avoid the spread of HIV. In that light, the whole approach is surreal to most people.
Magisterium whose head, Pope Benedict, condemned the use of condoms to avoid the spread of HIV. In that light
You seem to forget the recent furor where this same Pope was accused of allowing condoms to prevent the spread of HIV…
Dan,
After a while the whole matter makes your head spin for all its labyrinthine canonical calculations. If memory serves what you are mentioning was on his trip to Africa where he said maybe it would be “licit” for a male prostitute to use condemns, but not for ordinary straight people, where one of the partners — often the man — might be having sex outside of marriage. Pretty forced morality in my book. And that is not even getting into the Ugandan controversy over…licking ice-cream.(see Youtube)
Well, he didn’t use the word “licit”. He said it “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.” At the same time, he suggested that using condoms to reduce the spread of disease can be morally preferable to simply being indifferent to the health of the other partner. But the only really licit situation would be what the Pope called “a humanization of sexuality,” which means sex is understood as an expression of love and commitment.
Jimmy Akin has a good analysis.
As a sort of moral-theological reflection let me add this gloss. It seems strange to me that an important part of of the “pastoral” end of this sort of thing never gets mentioned. Namely, the notion of “epikeia”, which apparently from what I learned in Pontifical grad school has a very hallowed tradition in the Roman Catholic Church. It always seemed to me that hardly anyone had ever heard of it, even though it allows a lot of latitude for Catholics potentially that they may not realize they have. Perhaps it is a bit out of favor now. But it certainly has the right pedigree for Catholic moral deliberations. As a side-bar let me note that as confirmation of that, the fact that a guy I went to seminary with, one Steven O’Hala, who is now in charge of the future theological formation of future priests in Florida (in the seminary at Boynton Beach) did his S.T.D. doctoral dissertation in Rome on “epikeia”. But that was already a while ago. A decade or so is an eternity in the changing fashion of Catholic moral-theological rigor. And I noted O’Hala’s work has been cited by some scholars even. My experience in Catholic Floridian climes tells me they may need good “epikeia” and lots of it.
Kelly,
It may be the case that the bishops drafted the Winnipeg statement in good faith, but the inherent ambiguity of the line about conscience was trotted out by those who opposed the Church’s teaching on every possible occasion. It was inserted into catechetical materials with imprimaturs that made it look like the bishops were giving catholic couples permission to contracept. It was used by pastors to give their parishoners permission to contracept. The bishops did put out a document on the proper formation of conscience a couple of years later, but the Winnipeg statement took on a life of its own, and the bishops were not terribly proactive in fighting its misinterpretation. This made it look like the misinterpretation was the authentic interpretation. As I understand it, trying to be a good Catholic in the ’70′s through the ’90′s was hell in Canada; being persecuted by the bishops and pastors was the price one paid for fidelity to the Church’s teaching. It’s easy to ignore this now that things are better, but we should not forget how miserable things were in those days. Canadian Catholics of a certain age are battle hardened and have had their trust betrayed so often that they psychologically can’t “re-hermeneuticize”.
Hi Chas, thanks for your perspective.
What you say entirely makes sense to me, until I get to this: “As I understand it, trying to be a good Catholic in the ’70′s through the ’90′s was hell in Canada; being persecuted by the bishops and pastors was the price one paid for fidelity to the Church’s teaching.”
Frankly, just becase this is prefaced by “as I understand it” doesn’t make it less ridiculous. You’re positioning the “big bad bishops” against the “faithful remnant” and I am not sure why.
As I said in responding to Calgarian, why isn’t there a greater sense of what is owed to the truth? Either what Corapi and Barkin are saying is “true” or it is not. Have they been truthful? No.
Let’s evaluate the Statement once we’ve corrected such silly mischaracterizations of it. Only then, it seems to me, will we be talking about the same text.
You may think it ridiculous, but that is the story I hear time and again. I had a pastor who was sent to a “re-education camp” in California by his order in the 80′s, priest friends who were hung out to dry for teaching the faith, and know many lay people who were actively hindered by priests, bishops and religious in trying to live their Catholic faith. The “big bad bishops” vs. “the faithful remnant” was a reality in many places (and still is). It is simply unthinking clericalism to think that that is not and has not been the case.
For greater context, here’s the full text of the two most controversial paragraphs:
17. 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. In particular, the argumentation and rational foundation of the encyclical, which are only briefly indicated, have failed in some cases to win the assent of men of science, or indeed of some men of culture and education who share in the contemporary empirical and scientific mode of thought. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by contemporary man in understanding and appropriating some of the points of this encyclical, and we must make every effort to learn from the insights of Catholic scientists and intellectuals, who are of undoubted loyalty to Christian truth, to the Church and to the authority of the Holy See. Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.
………..
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.
Some thoughts:
1. For the most part, I think the text of the Statement is good. It’s not a “middle finger”, and so I appreciate Kelly’s point in having a conversation about the text and not making knee-jerk condemnations.
2. But I see why some people have trouble with the two particular paragraphs. Now I don’t think there is anything technically wrong with them: for example, I agree with Brett that the discussion of conscience seems to be tautological and thus is not incorrect. Rather, I agree with Brett that the problem is not content, but context, just as Brett describes above in his comment. So in that light, I wonder if paragraph 17 seems a little bit imprudent. Para.17 says that the contraception teaching in Humanae Vitae is “only briefly indicated” and that thoughtful, rational, faithful people in the Church have not been persuaded to assent to the teaching, and that these people have difficulty understanding and accepting the teaching. Now I don’t think there is anything incorrect with all that, but I wonder whether it should be said publicly. (And maybe the Statement’s authors were hampered by writing in a time before there was developed theology on this topic, e.g., the Theology of the Body,) Today, I think the Church would acnowledge the difficulty of the contraception teaching, but it wouldn’t stop there because that might leave the reader with the impression that the contraception teaching is not well-substantiated and not persuasive. The Church would also add that “the argumentation and rational foundation” of the contraception teaching has been substantially developed, is rational, and can withstand any logical critique.
3. I think Parag. 26 presents the much more important question for discussion: namely, how should the Church talk about difficult moral questions where one has a conscience that disagrees? The pedophilia example is a bad analogy to use, because it’s much worse and more obviously immoral than contraception. But what about abortion? I know abortion can be a difficult analogy too, but I’m trying to think of an instance where a Catholic sincerely wants to follow Church’s teachings, but has a conscience that says different. Take the hypothetical of a single woman, who was raped, who doesn’t have the resources to be a responsible parent, who doesn’t want to bring a child into this world, etc, and suppose she sincerely thinks that it it is right to get an abortion. How should the Church approach this woman? Is the following response sufficient? “She may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to her does so in good conscience.”
Personally, I get the feeling that this last response is woefully insufficient. But I know that this is a very difficult issue, and I don’t have any better answer to the problem at the moment. I’ll have to think some more.
Thales,
I for one appreciate the way you frame the dilemma. We are relying too much on the individual’s ability to respond to the difficult situation. Why is the woman left to her own resources to deal with such a blow? This sort of partitioning of suffering is what neutralizes the good aspects of conscience (as gadfly, not balm). When people who want to make the right decision (in any matter) are thrust into seemingly impossible circumstances, they become twisted and turn to inappropriate solutions. This is as much, or more, a failure of the larger Christian community. This may be the real just criticism of the WS in that it leaves the individual or young family to fend for themselves and allow children to be seen or even experienced as burden.
But does it really do this, Tausign?
I mean the document, one one level, is concerned with the way in which a person perceives his or her own relation to the Church, but on another level, and this comes across in those places where the text is addressed to those overseeing the spiritual care of persons, the concern is the way in which recipients of pastoral care are to be seen in relation to the Church.
Tausign,
Good thoughts. You might have something there. I have to think some more.
Kelly,
Maybe it’s inaccurrate for me to analogize to abortion, but that’s the example I keep coming to. Suppose we have a document pretty much identical to the WS, but for abortion instead of contraception: So, the document acknolwedges that the Church holds that abortion is immoral, it affirms its commitment to Church teaching, etc., — but then it says that this is a difficult teaching for some people to understand, that there are many well-meaning and intelligent people who think the argumentation for the immorality of abortion is weak or undeveloped and so they have difficulty understanding and accepting the teaching. Then the document concludes by noting that some people find themselves “in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties” and that they “have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives” — and that these people “may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”
I don’t see anything technically wrong with this document, but it just feels lacking and slightly imprudent to me, and it feels like it would be better if, at the very least, it included some material along the lines that Tausign was thinking. Even though someone should always follow their conscience, the Church doesn’t want anyone to have a conscience that makes them think that abortion (or contraception) is a legitimate choice. The Church has to prudently avoid conveying the impression that a particular immoral decision is a legitimate choice.
Maybe that’s the dilemma: the Church wants everyone to follow their conscience freely, but it doesn’t want people to have a misinformed conscience. How do you pastorally say to someone “after you sincerely try to form your conscience, you should follow it, and you should know that the the path you choose is legitimate” while saying at the exact same time “but despite your sincere attempts to inform your conscience, your conscience is misinformed and the path you’re choosing is actually illegitimate”?
Thales,
I think your last p’graph highlights something important. I think part of the answer is to recognize that, if a Catholic finds that their conscience does not agree with what the Church considers a well-formed conscience to assert, they are not in a static position. That is not the end of their situation. Any Catholic in such a situation must constantly put themselves in a position to re-evaluate. One will have to act according to one’s conscience, but one should also pay attention very carefully in the situation where one is acting (in conscience) against Church teaching to see if, in the acting and its consequences, something might be found that clarifies one’s situation in a way that merely theoretical reason failed to clarify. So yes, follow your conscience and know that following your conscience is legitimate, but be on the lookout for something that indicates whether or not the act in question (and not merely your following of conscience) is itself legitimate.
Amen. (This was intended to be an affirmation of Tausign’s comments at the top of this sub-thread, though now it appears rather free-floating.)
Brett,
Agreed.
So yes, follow your conscience and know that following your conscience is legitimate
I was agreeing to your reply except for the legitimate part. Following your conscience in voting or allocating money to charity or to send your kids to a public school is legitimate, Committing sins that cry out to heaven for vegenance isn’t legitimate, So yes, struggle with it. If your conscience is formed at all, committing a sin shold cause truggle. But following your conscience into sin isn’t legitimate.
As JPII said in Veritatis Splendor If [an act is not good]…, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.
If our conscience errs and we’re responsible for the error, then we are guilty of the evil committed.
We may be splitting hairs here, but I think we’re probably agreed, given your last sentence. If I may reverse it, if our conscience errs and we’re NOT responsible for the error (I.e., we have done everything that could be expected to properly form our conscience), then we are NOT guilty of the evil committed.
Whether following your conscience into sin is “legitimate” depends on which part of the act you are analyzing. This is what I tried to indicate by the phrase “whether or not the act in question (and not merely your following of conscience) is itself legitimate.”
Today, I think the Church would acnowledge the difficulty of the contraception teaching, but it wouldn’t stop there because that might leave the reader with the impression that the contraception teaching is not well-substantiated and not persuasive.
Thales,
Isn’t the major problem that the teaching is not persuasive? Or at least that the vast majority of those who must either follow it or not follow it either find it unpersuasive, or choose not to follow it? I personally think people simply do not find it persuasive. The Church’s teachings on contraception are kind of like the proofs of the existence of God. They are persuasive to people who already believe and not persuasive to people who don’t.
The thing about the persuasiveness of arguments is that they depend upon much more than their own inherent power. Context means a lot. For much of human history, people presumed there was something disordered about sterilizing the sex act. Today you are considered quite imprudent if you don’t. The attitude of the broader culture colors our reading of the argument immensely. The same thing, of course, can be said about slavery, women’s sufferage, capital punishment, infanticide, torture, religious freedom, abortion, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, the context is changing. For some people, at least, it is easier to grasp the logic of the Church’s position after 2 generations of birth control than when (effective modern) artificial birth control was first introduced. This is the case for many evangelical pro-lifers, for example, whose faith communities never took a stand against contraception until they came to believe that it introduced anti-child attitudes that contribute to abortion.
Lastly, I find the proofs of God’s existence absolutely compelling. You know, as long as by “God” one means God and not something else entirely. ;)
David,
You think the teaching is not persuasive; I disagree with you–I find it quite persuasive and rationally compelling. How familiar are you with all the theological and rational arguments underlying it? I don’t know how familiar you are, but I encourage you to go into the theology a little deeper, including JPII’s Theology of the Body, since I think you might learn new aspects of the arguments and discover that the arguments are more compelling than you think they are.
It doesn’t bother me that many people aren’t persuaded by the Church’s teaching on contraception. We live in a world where millions of people aren’t persuaded that a 5-month-old fetus is a human being with a right to life. Personally, I think the scientific evidence and rational argumentation supporting the fetus’s humanity and right to life is clear and almost bordering on the self-evident, but millions of people don’t find that persuasive. So it doesn’t surprise me that millions of people aren’t persuaded by the more complex teaching on contraception. Actually, I suspect that of those who reject the teaching on contraception, the vast majority of them have never actually considered the full reasoning behind the teaching, either because of a failure to educate them or because of their willful ignorance (I think this is also the case with my abortion example).
You’re probably unaware of the interesting phenomenon where Protestants (who generally don’t have as developed a theology of life issues as do Catholics, and who don’t have a prohibition against contraception) are discovering the Theology of the Body and other comprehensive theologies of life issues developed in Catholicism, and are being persuaded by these rational and Biblical arguments against contraception.
In short, I think the arguments are much more persuasive than the proofs of God’s existence, and I tend to think that the vast majority of people who reject the teaching on contraception haven’t fully considered the arguments, nor rationally weighed them.
Hi Calgarian,
If you decide to re-read it, I am really quite curious, in terms of this discussion, whether you (and people in general), feel that Mr. Corapi and Mr. Barkin have faithfully presented the contents of the Statement.
Like I said before, I have no problem with the Statement receiving criticism, but I have difficulty understanding why the criticism that I hear of the document, without exception, does not evidence a familiarity with the text.
Why is the truth given to little by persons (in this instance) like Mr. Corapi or Mr. Barkin, when it is owed so much?
Mr. Corapi’s financial career, like the nightly news in NY years ago, prospered by getting fervent but light to moderately read high school graduate Catholics… angry at dissenters so it was a tool at hand….until Mr. Corapi became a dissenter to his own community strictures, held a 50% off sale and left his community. He truly needs our prayers.
Kelly,
I just wanted to thank you for addressing this question. I was bothered by this point when it was raised on my recent thread, as it seemed part and parcel of a larger “it’s all the fault of Vatican II and those bad liberals” but I could not come up with a more insightful or constructive response. You have done well here.
If you find your conscience is not in accord with Church teaching, are you supposed to go on an endless quest to try to determine what mistake you are making so that you may correct your conscience? If you find yourself in disagreement with Humanae Vitae, are you supposed to read only works that argue in favor of Humanae Vitae? If you must say to yourself, “My conscience tells me one thing, but I must be wrong,” then shouldn’t you just obey the Church? It is not clear to me how much actual room there is in Catholicism for conscience. That is, some “authorities” seem to say one thing, and others say another. I have read arguments that you must only follow a well formed conscience, and if your conscience tells you Humanae Vitae is wrong, you know you don’t have a well formed conscience, and you should abide by Humanae Vitae even though it seems wrong to you. Advocates of an extreme view of a well formed conscience basically call for blind obedience.
David
1. The problem is this: historically Catholic moral theology tomes which only clergy read in the past would speak of the theoretic right for an “expert” to differ with a not clearly infallible papal position. You’ll still find this view in the Introduction to Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (online and in the last paragraph of section 8). Ott’s book was “the” source mid 20th century for clergy. Then Humanae Vitae appeared and was introduced at its press conference as non infallible twice by Monseignor Lambrushini and he was not corrected in subsequent days or weeks by the Pope although traditionalists came up with the mandatory secret knowledge of his being rebuked in private…..baloney….were that true, the Pope had a grave obligation to correct a grave public error in public for the world in this case to know the correction.
2. Getting back to Ott’s “yes experts can dissent”. Karl Rahner and Bernard Haring used the concept vis a vis the laity who they probably saw as being experts from their own angle…using rythmn and watching it fail often. Those two theologians among others urged laity therefore to seek counsel, pray, and study and then do what they thought sincerely was right. Those two reached the more educated Catholics.
3. The next step came from an adversary of Rahner and Haring ironically. Germain Grisez, conservative and pro HV and just recently involved with the Vatican in debating a marriage related article in “Theological Studies”,…..he in his most recent moral theology tome (1990′s) for seminaries affirmed the right to dissent, added one stipulation (find an authority higher than that document criticized) but Grisez left out the traditional word “expert” found in Ott (see “Christian Moral Principles” page 854). This was really new and coming from one of the Vatican’s favorite moral theologians in the US.
4. Context…..at the time of HV, US magazines like Time and Newsweek had articles prior to HV on some of the odd things said about sex by Catholic saints like Gregory the Great who spoke about couples expiating the pleasure they had in sex and there were others about e.g. which positions were moral due to better causing procreation; and when Paul VI in HV refers to the unbroken tradition of the Church on this area… glowingly without his being honest about the other odd aspects that the magazines were revealing about saintly and papal comments….Paul VI suffered reduced credibility by doing the papal sanitizing thing (ever a Catholic habit…read Leo XIII on slavery and the Church…then read John Noonan on the same….day and night…in that order)….the pope lost credibility with anyone who was reading magazines weekly which in those days prior to the net was alot of people even if because they sat in dentist or doctor waiting rooms with their children and reached for a magazine.
What kind of conscience do you have to have to receive a teaching on the formation of conscience?
Advocates of an extreme view of a well formed conscience basically call for blind obedience.
Agreed. Though I hope I am not among them. No, I don’t think one must only read works in favor of HV. Simply that one must be open to the possibility of being wrong. One should read at least some works in favor of HV, all the while trying to give it the benefit of the doubt.
The quest need not be endless in the sense of reading and reading and asking and asking until one finally agrees with the Church, but it should be open-ended in the sense that the possibility of changing one’s view is left open, even explicitly so.
Another thing to keep in mind that is not always mentioned in such debates is that there is a difference between finding HV unpersuasive and feeling compelled in conscience that one must use artificial contraception. Those two things may overlap, but they don’t necessarily do so.
Kelly,
If we leave Carapi and Barkin aside, then I found the following 25th anniversary discussion of Humanae Vitae useful for making your point.: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10960
This was a good post to get me to revisit, refresh and rethink some of my positions on the artifical contraception debate. Somewhere a long way back you (Kelly) asked us to read the Winnipeg Statement and so I did so. I also read the U.S. bishops 1968 statement ‘Human Life in Our Day’ (HLIOD). And finally, the archived article from American Magazine which I mentioned above.
My opinion is that that two bishops conferences took profoundly different approaches to HV. I was disappointed in WS and my reaction was that whatever support it gave to HV was minimal and its appeal to ‘conscience’ was generally misinformed. I will concede that document was at least respectul.
HLIOD was a much more developed document and it took on the issue more directly and compassionately. It has a much clearer section on ‘conscience’ which is better informed and communicated. For these reasons its a more charitable document. And it took the time to weave contaception into a greater ‘life agenda’ where it belongs.
Finally, I found some hope in the anniversary article from American Magazine that there will be new ways of looking at this. Thanks for bring this up, its been fruitful for me.