Two voices on the hill

It is both heartening and disheartening to look at some recent activity by important Catholic voices on Parliament Hill regarding public policy and issues of sexuality.

What is surely clear is that a great divide separates this country's episcopacy and the views of ordinary Catholics, those loyal members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada. Both the bishops and file league have recently testified or written to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The words of the league ring with the compassion, pastoral good sense and a willingness to co-operate in the framing of public policy that suits a tolerant Canadian outlook. The words of the bishops are rife with ambiguity and a surprising fear of their own freedom of speech being threatened.

The Catholic Women's League has recommended to the government through the Justice Committee that it approve of legal homosexual civil unions. It asked that the term "marriage" be reserved to the union of a man and a woman, but that a separate legal process be established to recognize same-sex unions which would outline their entitlements, benefits and responsibilities".

"Parliament can best act to support marriage by enacting a statute that allows for civil unions to be registered between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples with all the legal implications and responsibilities including separation, divorce and maintenance," said the league.

This is newsworthy, because the league's loyalty to the magisterium has been proven in decades of obedience. But the women simply will not surrender their powers of independent moral reasoning, nor fall silent and give up active participation as leaders and citizens of Canada, nor shrink from their historic concern for vulnerable populations among us.

CNT salutes the league.

But the very week that the CWL made its national contribution to the responsible formation of public policy, a strange letter from the CCCB was sent to Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, raising its concerns. over the content of a private member's bill, C 250, which would widen the Criminal Code Hate Propaganda section by one category, that of sexual orientation. At present, the code prohibits hate crimes based on colour, race, religion and ethnic origin. These are known as the 'identifiable groups' to which this bill would add sexual orientation.

Can the great differences be attributed to gender? It is hard to imagine a woman thundering as Cardinal Josef Ratzinger did in 2002: "Even the inclination towards homosexuality must be seen as an objective disorder with a strong tendency towards intrinsic moral evil". The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1983, states that hatred of the neighbour is a sin and each human being is entitled to have his life protected and dignity respected. However, it goes on to declare that sexual behaviour between people of the same sex is morally wrong and in no circumstance can it be approved.

Bishop's worry that "some people might find the beliefs of the church too blunt or harsh and invoke an amended Criminal Code to silence the teaching"

Instead of rushing to support such an amendment to protect a vulnerable group, the bishops worry that Catholic teaching might be threatened under it. Maybe they are on to something. It is foreseeable that some day a virulent anti-homosexual sermon in a parish such as we have all heard at one time or another might be subject to criminal prosecution under such an amended law.

The bishops choose to define their argument as one of the defence of free speech and teaching for Catholics, ignoring the damage their beliefs and words may inflict on a daily basis across the country. Sadly, this time, they take up the wrong end of the human rights question.

On the other hand, the bishops' brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee (April 11), while defending the traditional role of marriage and family, exhibits pastoral sensitivity to "other mutually supportive, committed relationships," concerned "that no one be left in a difficult situation by death, disability, etc." Given the BC Court of Appeal ruling of May 1, the dialogue has just begun.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning