Culture war to continue.

Social conservatives--by which we mean pro-life conservatives with a social justice conscience--are unanimous in vowing that marriage will continue to be an issue on the political and social landscape. Following the December 7 vote, they forecast that this certainly will not be the end of the struggle.--Editor.

Campaign Life Coalition

Said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, the pro-life movement's political branch, "The battle for the right of the traditional family, like the battle for the rights of the unborn Canadian children, will continue," (press release, Dec. 7, 2006).

Vote Marriage Canada 

"The battle's not over, there will be an election ... soon, and fortunately we live in a democratic country where people can make this an issue. The goal is to elect men and women who share our values," said Pat O'Brien, former Liberal member of Parliament and spokesman for Vote Marriage Canada.

United Mothers

United Mothers summed up its attitude as: Marriage. It is not over! Parliament forgot children's rights (Dec. 13, 2006).

Canada Family Action Coallition

Said Brian Rushfeldt for CFAC: "The marriage issue must be re-opened regardless of the vote. A study to expose the impact upon children and society of the Liberal redefinition of marriage and the attempt to normalize homosexual behaviour has to be done, regardless of this vote."

Enshrine Marriage Canada

William Gairdner, of Enshrine Marriage Canada, stated: "Canadians have been lulled into acceptance of same-sex 'marriage' by interventionist courts, biased national media and unscrupulous politicians." "Since the Trudeau era ... Canada has wholly surrendered itself to the crassly materialistic and egalitarian mentality of the welfare state, where all public debate is reduced to a kind of internal civil war over equality and rights ... We must realize that a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage' is not really aimed at elevating the status of homosexuality as much as it is aimed at dissolving the deep historical sense of privilege and status of true marriage and the heterosexuality that has always been one of its four conditions" (williamgairdner.com, Jan. 27, 2007).

On January 28, in a long blog, Dr. Gairdner noted: "Alas, I, like many others, have grown tired of this topic. But moral fatigue is not an excuse for capitulation on principles."

Catholic Civic Rights League

Phil Horgan, president of CCRL, said his organization "will continue to express its support for traditional marriage in our work with Parliament, the courts and the media and we will continue to help those who find themselves penalized for the peaceful expression of views on marriage" (CCRL press release, Dec. 7, 2006).

REAL Women: let us have a referendum

REAL Women Canada called for a referendum. "Since the Canadian public has been denied a voice on the issue of same-sex 'marriage,' a very persuasive argument can be made for a referendum on the same-sex 'marriage' issue," said the organization's national vice-president, Gwen Landolt (REAL Women press release, Dec. 7, 2006).

Restore Marriage, Canada

In its newsletter of January 30, 2007, Dr. Grant Hill, coordinator, notes that by becoming the fourth country in the world to legalize SSM, Canada has undermined this critical institution around the world. He adds: "I think that places an additional responsibility on us to restore true marriage."

Daniel Cere 

Daniel Cere, an assistant professor of religion, ethics and public policy at McGill University, characterized the December 7 vote as "a dog-and-pony show." He added the government had not invested in the marriage debate and had nothing to offer in the way of new ideas or alternatives to address the deeply held values of many Canadians (Montreal's Catholic Times, Jan. 2007).

Catholic Register

Joseph Sinasac, editor of the Catholic Register, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Toronto, opined that the vote was not the end of the matter, just as the 1991 defeat of a proposed abortion law failed to settle that debate. "Just because a particular vote has passed, the subject is not closed, the debate has not ended. It has just switched to a different battlefield," he said (Dec. 5, 2007).

Rory Leishman

Rory Leishman, writing a column for the London Free Press, asked whether Christians should now give up on politics. His answer: "Absolutely not. Christians have a duty to bear witness to the love and truth of Christ at all times and in all aspects of their lives, public and private.

"In the political sphere, Christians should never abandon the attempt to persuade Parliament to restore the traditional legal definition of marriage. And above all, they should never renounce the struggle to revive protection in law for the sanctity of all human life" (Dec. 19, 2006).

WHAT ABOUT CANADA'S Catholic bishops?

The views of the Catholic bishops are especially important. Why? Because:

* These views are part of the Church worldwide and, therefore, not subject to local bullying.

* They are founded on age-old doctrines, not subject to alteration in their fundamentals.

* Catholics are by far the largest religious bloc in Canada.

The bishops consider the situation as serious. For example, Bishop Wingle of St. Catharines, following Parliament's decision not to re-open the debate to restore the traditional definition of marriage, noted that the country is "sinking ever deeper into the morass of moral chaos and confusion as we ignore the sane order established by God for the good of creation" (LifeSiteNews, Dec. 11, 2006).

In a press release, the Catholic Bishops of Canada called on all Canadian Catholics to do the following:

* To encourage the special relationship of man and woman in marriage which remains the enduring basis of all society, and has proven to be the best support for the rights and needs of children;

* To continue to look for ways to assist and support heterosexual couples who, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in 1997, "have the unique ability to procreate" and who are responsible for caring for and nurturing most of the children of Canada;

* To urge federal politicians to undertake research and further consultations on the long-term impact of the redefinition of civil marriage on society and future generations;

* To monitor provincial and territorial legislation as well as policies to ensure full protection of freedom of religion and conscience and also freedom of expression for all citizens in the private and public spheres;

* To collaborate with departments of education and school boards to ensure that classroom teaching and school resources respect the traditional understanding of marriage;

* To respect the dignity of all persons, whatever their sexual orientation, by avoiding every sign of unjust discrimination toward men and women with same-sex tendencies (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358);

* To guard against further changes to the definition of civil marriage, including polygamy;

* To urge political parties to allow their members a free vote on basic ethical and moral questions that shape our society, particularly those issues that impact on the fundamental rights of freedom of religion and conscience, such as the definition of marriage;

* To urge the federal government to safeguard faith groups that do not accept the redefinition of marriage from being penalized with respect to their charitable status.

For Catholics, marriage is an issue intimately related to human nature which has been created male and female. Catholic teaching on this remains consistent and constant: marriage is the exclusive union of one man and one woman. It is essential for all Canadians to continue this debate, despite the recent decision of the House of Commons (CCCB, Dec. 8, 2006).

What we like and do not like about this statement

For the first time the CCCB has gone beyond a general endorsement of marriage to point to specific areas where actions are necessary. That is all to the good and we commend them for it.

But we have two hesitations about the statement, one of criticism, and one of uneasiness.

Criticism

Here we point to the misplaced use of the term "heterosexual" couples (bullet 2), as if to imply that society is divided between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals." Homosexuals are not born that way, and they are not a different human species.

This misuse goes hand in hand with the erroneous use of the term "sexual orientation," said to be from the Catholic Catechism. The Catechism and the Vatican never use the term sexual "orientation" (bullet 6). Instead, the Church speaks of sexual tendencies, a very different matter. (One wonders who at the CCCB changed the wording.)

Uneasiness

Our uneasiness applies to the same text of bullet 6, where it is (once more) re-iterated to we all "must respect all persons, whatever their sexual tendencies."

Now, this is absolutely true as it stands. What is increasingly annoying is that we read this refrain over, and over, and over again. Meanwhile, there is espiscopal silence about the true nature of the homosexualists' assault, their viciousness, their aggressive actions, their shameless exploitation of the legal equality they have acquired in order to impose their twisted lifestyle wherever possible.

Freedom of conscience and expression in Canada are now under full-scale attack, especially by Human Rights Commissions and by certain media.

Also, the real battle is now taking place in the schools, including Catholic schools, where 'gay activists' are undermining traditional values and are making life miserable for teachers, principals and trustees. Meanwhile, Christian politicians, both Catholic and Evangelical, both federally and provincially, are woefully ignorant of their Christian duties in the public square.

Where do we go from here?

It must be pointed out that in many ways, the fault for the failure to defeat same-sex 'marriage' and the state of siege under which Canadian Christianity finds itself lies at the doorstep of some of its leaders--that is, clergy from all denominations.

First, some churches--the United and Anglican communities in particular--have in large part abandoned the Christian faith. Several United Church moderators have made it clear that they do not even accept the divinity of Christ. Like the UC, the Anglicans, too, have no means of safeguarding Christian doctrines among their members because of the absence of a central authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury in England has moral authority only, but no legal jurisdiction outside his own diocese. Further, both groups have gone about blessing the very evils faithful Christians have attempted to combat.

On the other hand, whereas these churches have been guilty of sins of commission, others--perhaps out of fear, indifference or a misplaced sense of compassion and tolerance--are culpable of sins of omission.

This may especially be the case with the Canadian Catholic hierarchy. To their credit, bishops did issue statements and pastoral letters from 2003 onwards, urging parishioners to take action against the redefinition of marriage. Thus, they did create a "paper trail" to make it clear to future generations that the Catholic Church in Canada did oppose same-sex 'marriage' at this point in history. However, greater and more effective action was sorely lacking.

One episcopal weakness has been the notion that after placing a statement on the website, no further action is required from the bishop because he has fulfilled his duty. Compare this with the attitude of our recent Popes. Both John Paul II and now Benedict continue to repeat messages on the defence of life monthly, if not weekly. Canadian bishops on the other hand seem frightened of repeating the same message in pastoral letters and teaching opportunities.

A second weakness has been the extreme reluctance, in fact, a refusal, to apply Canonical rules to the behaviour of Catholics, such as denying Communion to Catholic politicians who publicly support moral evils such as abortion and same-sex "marriage."

This may have played a decisive role in allowing the same-sex "marriage" bill to be passed by Parliament in June 2005 and then in not having that legislation reviewed this past December. This is evident from the voting patterns of Catholic Members of Parliament who, in a disturbing development, supported same-sex 'marriage' in unfortunately high numbers.

A third aspect is the seeming lack of awareness of the Catholic laity that, in the marketplace, it is their responsibility to be witnesses to the Christian faith. See sidebar from Second Vatican Council.

How are Catholics to resist the blandishments of the culture of death?

The devolution of Canadian society is not without precedent in history. The collapse of those once-great civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome can at least partially be traced to the widespread acceptance of evils such as homosexuality. The question arises as to how Canadian Catholics can help our nation avoid a similar fate.

Joseph Sinasac of the Catholic Register suggests public opinion can be moved by concerted lobbying and education campaigns. But that presupposes that within churches and faith groups, there must be a renewed emphasis on and support for families themselves--churches must show parents how they can deal with the societal pressures they face.

Positive role models of families must also be put forth, and there must be more embracing of broken families.

Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren, a Catholic, reminds everyone that, on the spiritual plane, "God is with us," while in the physical world, "it makes more sense to proceed as the left did, but in reverse."

The first steps in this direction are being accomplished through the Conservative government's cutbacks on Status of Women, and the elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the Law Commission of Canada. The government is now working on the appointment of judges who are morally and intellectually sound. Yet, says Warren, more needs to be done by "a far more vocal and tactless constituency to (Stephen Harper's political) right" (emphasis ours).

RELATED ARTICLE: Laity and the second Vatican Council.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) was quite explicit about the role of the laity. In its Decree on the laity, Chapter 7, it first discussed "the temporal order" (And God saw all that he had made and found it very good, Genesis 1:31). This temporal order, it said, includes everything: "personal and family values, culture, economic interests, the trades and professions, institutions of the political community, international relations and so on." Then follows the important paragraph:

"Laymen ought to take on themselves as their distinctive task this renewal of the temporal order. Guided by the light of the Gospel and the mind of the Church, prompted by Christian love, they should act in this domain in a direct way and in their own specific manner. As citizens among citizens they must bring to their cooperation with others their own special competence, and act on their own responsibility; everywhere and always to have to seek the justice of the Kingdom of God. The temporal order is to be renewed in such a way that, while its own principles are fully respected, it is harmonized with the principles of the Christian life and adapted to the various conditions of times, places and peoples. Among the tasks of this apostolate Christian social action is preeminent. The Council desires to see it extended today to every sector of life, not forgetting the cultural sphere (2)." (2)Quoting encyclicals from Leo XIII (1891) to Plus XII (1941).