Did "Liberating Potential" undo the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement?

In September 2008, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) issued a document called "Liberating Potential". The document was issued to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Liberating Potential is an excellent document that speaks about the greatness of the gift of sexuality and the fact that contraception and abortion are incompatible with God's plan for life. The document is very robust and doesn't contain any trace of dissent.  It is everything you would hope to see from the pen of our bishops.

I applaud the bishops for having issued this document. It was badly needed.

Given that "Liberating Potential" is in agreement with the Church's teaching on contraception, it is legitimate to ask the question as to whether this nullifies the Winnipeg Statement. In other words, did the assent in "Liberating Potential" undo the dissent of the Winnipeg Statement?  I don't think so. In my opinion, it was a good first step, but it doesn't go far enough. Let me explain why.

When the average Joe like you or me commits a sin, God requires several steps in order for us to be forgiven:

1.  We must admit our wrongdoing.
2.  We must be sorry for having offended God and others.
3.  We must change our behavior and make a firm resolve to not commit that sin again.

I think that the bishops need to be held to the same standard when it comes to the Winnipeg Statement. So let's see if Liberating Potential lives up to this standard.

1.  Admitting their wrongdoing

Have the bishops admitted the error of the Winnipeg Statement and all the erroneous pastoral actions that flowed from it over 40 years?  No.
Has there has been any admission of guilt and of the huge damage done over the last four decades?  No. 

Now someone might claim that the bishops may have privately repented of the Winnipeg Statement. That's certainly a possibility. However, bishops should know that a public sin requires a public repentance, as was

Is money all that matters to the CCCB regarding Development and Peace?

John Pacheco at SoCon or Bust just wrote another insightful article on the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal.  Click here to read it.

Media reports following the Plenary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) had some coverage of the D&P affair, although we really don't know what happened because all the important discussions were held behind closed doors.

Among the public comments that we know of, Bishop Richard Grecco (Charlottetown) presented a report that whitewashed D&P of any wrongdoing. That part isn't surprising.  What shocked me was the report's assessment of the toll that this scandal has taken:

"Among the individual and regular monthly donors to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, we have had 34 individuals (of our 6,110 donors) cancel their monthly contributions as a direct result of the controversy, representing 0.5% of our donor database." (Source)

The reason that donations were so little affected is partly due to the fact that most pro-life Catholics stopped donating to D&P years ago because of other scandals.  

But there is a more fundamental issue here.  Is that how Catholic bishops should assess a controversy, by its financial cost?  

What about the sufferings of thousands of faithful Catholics that have become disillusioned and

Sadly, Fr. Rosica can't let it go

Fr. Rosica has again had another outburst against bloggers. He's taken his message on the road, this time to Rome, at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

He made some good points about how the media tends to exhibit a moral bias. He also accurately pointed out how the media tends to "dumb down" the message and how form often becomes more important than substance.  People have lost intellectual rigor and are unwilling to pay attention for more than 15 seconds unless you flash some spectacular picture on the tube.

But he couldn't resist attacking bloggers - again.  Here's the relevant excerpt:

"On the Internet there is no accountability, no code of ethics, and no responsibility for one’s words and actions. [...]

"One of the challenges for the Church is that the Internet can destroy or confuse the hierarchy of information-providing that church agencies have worked so hard to establish. Web sites and blogs tend to concentrate on negative messages."

The result, Father Rosica contended, is that "Christians are known as the people who are against everything."

There is truth in his statements. The Internet is certainly open to everybody and accountability works only indirectly, through peer pressure and reputation.  But this freedom is also one of its great strengths, in that bloggers can't be fired or shut down if the powers that be don't agree with their message.

Honestly, I'm not too sure that "old" media has much accountability or responsibility either.  Radio,

On the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

In light of the Richard Gaillardetz scandal, some people have inquired about the infallibility of the Church's teaching on the ordination of women. You can read an in-depth dissection of the issue at Socon Or Bust. I'll offer you my abbreviated version.

The Church's teaching on women's ordination is unquestionably an infallible teaching of the Church. If one reads the words used by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you can see that he used very heavy and deliberate language to authoritatively define this teaching. 

In the following months, the Church realized that this document was not accepted by everybody and that some controversy remained. After all, in such a large Church, it is not surprising that a variety of interpretations could emerge for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, despite the very definitive language used. So like a good Mother, the Church wished to reassure her children by repeating this teaching in a very explicit matter with the firm intention of dispelling any controversy that may have remained. 

This document, called the Responsum ad dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued less than 18 months after Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. It’s quite unusual for the Vatican to repeat itself so soon. It also contains the key word “infallible”. Let’s read a juicy quote: 

“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”

That's very strong language!  How much more needs to be said?  But there is something else that you probably didn't notice.  All three sources of divine revelation are mentioned in that one sentence:

-Word of God
-Tradition (capital T)
-Magisterium

The three sources of divine revelation are invoked in the same sentence as “requires definitive assent” and “infallible”. The Vatican is telling us something profound: they didn't make this up, it is divinely revealed.  Let anyone with ears to hear listen!!

It doesn't matter how definitive you or I think that this teaching is. All that matters is that the Vatican intended for it to be definitive and infallible. At that point, debate and discussion must cease and gave way to humble obedience.

Now someone could argue that we don't really know how definitive the Vatican meant to be on this matter. All we have is a written document, and like any document, it is subject to diverse interpretations. So how do we really know that the Vatican meant to teach infallibly? This is essentially the position that Mr. Gaillardetz is taking. This is a very dangerous course because it would essentially nullify the wonderful gift of the Magisterium. We could never really know what the Vatican teaches and we would be open to our own personal interpretations on everything. In such a world, theologians would become the official interpreters of magisterial teaching. Even more, individual Catholics could also become their own interpreters of magisterial teaching and hence be allowed to contracept “in good conscience” despite what the church has taught for 2,000 years, and even before that going back to the earliest Old Testament texts.

Have you ever seen the skit called "Who's on first?"  It's a classic by Abbott and Costello.  Similarly, imagine if you're trying to explain something to a friend and he just doesn't get it.  No matter how many times you say it and how many different ways your word it, he still doesn't understand.  Wouldn't that be annoying?  That's exactly what Mr. Gaillardetz does with regards to the Vatican and women's ordination.  How many times does the Vatican have to say “definitive” and “infallible” before he finally accepts the teaching?

Do you see how all the pieces are coming together now? Once trust in magisterial teaching breaks down, everything else falls apart. Gaillardetz has made a living by playing on nuances and by instilling doubts about the infallibility of various Church teaching. This gives them free reign to put forward his own interpretations. 

.