Canada: the (Delwin) Vriend case.

Edmonton - Early in April, the Supreme Court of Canada "real in" sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination under Alberta's Human Rights Code. The provincial legislature has consistently refused to insert such a clause in its code; so the Court forced Alberta to put it in on the request of Delwin Vriend, a chemistry teacher, who had been dismissed from King's University College in 1991 because his homosexuality conflicted with the college's Christian principles. The Supreme Court held that the Alberta code should conform to the Charter of Rights, which the Court said protected sexual orientation. After a bitter debate in his badly divided caucus, Premier Ralph Klein announced that he had decided not to override the decision by invoking the "notwithstanding" clause, as he might have done.

The judgment provoked strong emotions on both sides. Much of the press comment, and many of the letters to the papers, insisted that this was a blow for justice. Others, however, criticised the Court for judicial activism: the Court is supposed to interpret the law, not rewrite it, and if change was needed, it should have been a matter for a legislative body to consider.

Still others wondered how this ruling harmonised with the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter. Was a Christian institution going to be denied the authority to enforce a code of conduct in accord with Christian principles?

One should note that the Charter does not protect sexual orientation in specific words. Mr. Justice Peter Cory declared that it was the Charter, not the Court, that was overruling the legislation; Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci, who wrote the majority decision, said much the same thing. But neither one pointed out that "sexual orientation" had been deliberately excluded from the Charter by Parliament, just as it was deliberately excluded from the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Catholic reaction

Some Catholic responses to the ruling were very disturbing. The Western Catholic Reporter noted that, while pro-family groups were worrying about more moral chaos as a result of the Court's action, the Edmonton Archdiocesan Social Justice Commission regarded it as a victory for minorities. And a statement prepared by Archbishop Joseph MacNeil and moral theologian Paul Flaman stressed that a homosexual person has basic rights and should not be discriminated against, a point which has been reiterated time and time again but which ignores just discrimination.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that there is just discrimination; it was absurd for these religious spokesmen to make it appear that King's College has no right to defend Christian teaching.

John Lynch, the Social Justice co-ordinator, called the ruling a victory for those who seek equal rights for all Albertans. The ruling "is simply an acknowledgement of Genesis that everything God created is good." Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are created equally by God and anything God creates is good, he stated.

This opinion flatly contradicts the teaching of the Church, as well as begging many questions. Homosexuality is a disordered condition and homosexual acts are gravely sinful as well as anti-social.