My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: Many assume
that we are powerless, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been
invoked and the Supreme Court has spoken and settled the same-sex issue.
However, such an assumption is erroneous. The Supreme Court has said
that Parliament may redefine marriage, it has not said that it must
redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The Supreme Court
Justices talk about reading the Constitution,“expansively,” and that it
is like a “living tree which by way of progressive interpretation,
accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”
Nevertheless, I would suggest that there are more roots to the tree
than simply the Charter of Rights and Freedom. There are also
historical, cultural, philosophical, moral, and anthropological roots.
The failure to attend to the health of all the roots runs the risk of
killing the tree and destroying the public good.
Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking
legalization of same-sex “marriage” are not the financial or health or
inheritance or pension benefits associated with marriage. The search for
stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship is not the
driving force. The principal objective in seeking same-sex “marriage”is
not really even about equality rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful
psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual
activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.
It is significant to note that 18 months after same-sex “marriage”
arrived in Canada (principally as a result of court decisions in Ontario
and British Columbia), more than 95% of adult Canadian gays have chosen
to ignore their new legal right.
The Supreme Court also refused to answer whether the Charter requires
that marriage be redefined.
As Catholics we hold marriage to be a sacrament, a sacred covenant in
which husband and wife express their mutual love, and join with God in
the creation of a new human person, destined for eternal life.
However, without recourse to the sacramental reality and without
reliance on a multitude of quotes from Sacred Scripture, we find
ourselves sharing basic common ground with the majority of Canadians who
understand marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, faithful in
love and open to the gift of life. Marriage and the family are the
foundations of society, through which children are brought into this
world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood. As such, the family is a
more fundamental social institution than the state, and the strength of
the family is vital for the well-being of our whole society.
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine
the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must
use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of
the common good.
It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is
nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred,
it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether
it is performed in public or in private.
Personal choice is exercised both in opting for the marital state and
in the choice of one’s spouse. However, the future spouses are not free
to alter marriage’s essential purpose or properties. These do not depend
on the will or the sexual orientation of the contracting parties. They
are rooted in natural law and do not change.
The committed union of two people of the same sex is not the same
human reality as the committed union of one man and one woman. A
same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life,
producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two
complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same
sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same sex
“marriage” through their individual choice is false. All the packaging
in the world doesn’t alter substance.
Some would allege that opposing same-sex “marriage” is pure
prejudice. This contention is also false. There are human rights laws,
which say: men and women must be paid the same wage for the same work;
an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of the skin colour;
landlords may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. These
decisions uphold the rights of the individual and, at the same time,
strengthen Canadian society. They encourage us to recognize the humanity
of the other person.
Furthermore, a man and a woman wanting to marry may be completely
different in their characteristics such as: colour, ethnicity, in wealth
and social status, physical attributes, and educational background. None
of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two
individuals are still a man and a woman, and the requirements of nature
are respected. Two individual of the same sex, regardless of their race,
wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because
of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex
couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice;
on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition.
It is the right and the responsibility of all citizens who are
troubled by the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage, to
enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their
voices heard by their fellow citizens and our political leaders.
Please take the time to write, email and/or fax government leaders
and your local member of parliament registering your objection to the
proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage.
January 2005
F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary |