Attack on NFLD priest (Dermot O'Keefe).

One criticism of Bill C-33 (passed in May 1996), in which Ottawa gave special rights to the homosexual lifestyle, was that after its passing, any statement of traditional teaching on this subject might be regarded as hate literature. Exactly this reaction came to an item in Msgr. Dermot O'Keefe's Sunday Bulletin for October 31, 1996, in his parish of Sts. Peter and Paul, Bay Bulls, Newfoundland.

Objecting to the Labour Minister's announcement that he intended to bring into the provincial Human Rights Code a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Monsignor wrote:

The orientation or inclination towards bodily union between two men or two women is evidently a disorder in human nature, and it results from Original Sin. It can and must be controlled and conquered with God's supernatural help, through his Sacraments prayerfully received. People with this tendency deserve respect as persons, especially if they are fighting against it. But giving in to it, and living that way, is morally wrong, against God's plan in nature, as our human reason sees clearly. Rather than a human right, it is an inhuman wrong; and it is the root cause of Aids.

You should not be forced to rent your apartment to such a couple, or accept them as teachers for your children. There is such a thing as rightful discrimination in some matters; you must protect the morals and health of your family. But you will have no protection if the government passes this legislation, approving and encouraging the sinful lifestyle of sodomy.

Evening Telegram

Seldom has an entry in a parish bulletin produced such a storm of protest, given an outlet in the pages of the province's leading paper, the St. John's Evening Telegram. Brian Hodder, co-chairman of Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality, called the language used here "extreme and hateful towards gays and lesbians," a "virulent attack against our dignity as human beings." These statements might have a devastating impact, he said, especially on gays and lesbians in the priest's own parish.

He also said, "The statements of this priest should be investigated by the police to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant charges under Bill C-41."

The executive director of the province's Human Rights Association, Jerry Vink, reacted in a similar way. The comments in the bulletin certainly border on hate literature, he said: "It gets very close to actual hate literature propaganda. If someone wants to have certain views like that you don't start propagating it."

Maura Hanrahan, in her Evening Telegram column of November 6, called the Monsignor's statement "little more than a rant that served only to reveal the personal hangups of the priest for Bay Bulls parish." She added, "His rallying cry was that we should keep homosexuals on the fringes of society. This stands in contrast to Jesus' most compelling teaching: to love your neighbor as yourself."

It's sad, she said, that representatives of the Church feel free to impose qualifications where Jesus did not: "I'm no theologian but I can't find any New Testament references to homosexuality." (Compare St. Paul's reference to "men doing shameful things with men," Romans 1:24-27, and the references to sexual perversion in 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10).

Aids Committee

Another attack came from Gerard Yetman, the executive director of the province's AIDS committee. He complained that Msgr. O'Keefe was defeating the message that everyone has to protect himself against AIDS; that he was defeating all the work that has been done in the area of discrimination; and that he was neglecting the fact that AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease: "It's a blatant display of a lack of knowledge on HIV and AIDS. Out of the six million cases in the world, only about 15 per cent of it is homosexual in nature."

Comment

But the above is a blatant falsehood. In Toronto, the capital city for homosexuals in Canada, in 1990, 94 per cent of AIDS cases were the result of homosexual acts. As for women, in Canada, only a very small number (chiefly Haitians in the Montreal area) are infected with HIV. In other words, AIDS in Canada is essentially a homosexual disease. Everyone can not get AIDS.

In 1995 Roseanne Skoke (MP, Nova Central) reflected the Catholic position on homosexuality in the House of Commons, the position Msgr. O'Keefe described, the position outlined in the Vatican statements of 1986 and 1992. Some attempted to hoot her out of Parliament. Fellow MP Svend Robinson, a declared homosexual, said that such views should not be tolerated by the House, and some members of her own Liberal party echoed the same sentiments. Later on, the Liberal government went ahead and passed Bill C-33 in May 1996. Now we see what was an expected and predictable consequence: despite the Charter's emphasis on freedom of religion, it seems to have become virtually unthinkable for a clergyman to preach the Gospel, and to describe as sinful behaviour which has always been thought to be such by the Christian religion.

Catholic official

And once again we see the fence-sitting of certain Catholic officials. As the Evening Telegram reported, a spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's distanced the Church from Msgr. O'Keefe's comments. Maxine Davis, executive assistant to the Archbishop, said, "It was a comment he made in a church bulletin and people are free to take it or leave it. It's not guidelines or policy that have been established by the archdiocese."

In response to the attacks on Msgr. O'Keefe, Frank M. O'Leary of the Catholic Civil Rights League sent a letter to the Evening Telegram accusing it of lack of professionalism: the teachings of the Church are freely available, he said, and they can be found in an easily accessible book, the Catholic Catechism.

The letter was not published in the Telegram, but it did appear in the archdiocesan paper, The Monitor. The real point of the controversy, O'Leary maintained, was not the Monsignor's remarks but the highly aggressive and intolerant homosexual reaction to them. "It's extremely suspicious," he went on, "that a group which claims to be so oppressed and victimized can simultaneously be so arrogant, confident and cocksure of themselves that they can call for a Christian minister of religion to be charged under `hate crimes' legislation for preaching what has been orthodox Christian doctrine for 2,000 years."

A noteworthy feature of O'Leary's letter was his saying, in effect, "If you want to know what the Church teaches, don't go to the chancery office, go straight to the Catechism."

Maxine Davis was right in one respect: it was not policy established by the archdiocese, but by the Vatican itself, and Catholics are not free to ignore it. It was just one more example of the Catholic position on a sensitive issue not being defended by a Canadian Catholic official.

In similar vein, Archbishop Gervais of Ottawa told a meeting of the Catholic Civil Rights League in his city last fall that their members ought to play down opposition to homosexuality. Given the proselytizing by homosexuals, even in Catholic schools, Catholic parents need all the help they can get, and they should not be made to feel that Catholic spokesmen are letting them down.

David Dooley is an associate editor of Catholic Insight.