From Dr. Donald Graham re Rosemary Ganley.

After December 9, 2004, Rosemary Ganley, a former Catholic teacher, "rejoice[d]" on the pages of the Peterborough Examiner that our Supreme Court has affirmed Parliament's authority to alter the traditional definition of marriage. Lamentation is more the order of the day.

Supporters of this decision de facto assert that the institution of marriage lacks its own inherent architecture. They mistakenly focus upon the question of who is authorized to change the supposed "inequity," precluding same sex couples from sharing in the range of benefits which society has hitherto bestowed upon those marrying. However, the benefits bestowed correspond directly to the reality itself: marriage draws its life from the complementarity of man and woman, their vowed, public commitment, their procreative enterprise, and its issue, the family.

Some object that procreation cannot be a defining characteristic of marriage because not every married couple has children, and people have recourse to surrogacy or new technologies. True, some couples cannot, or choose not to, have children. This does not disprove the procreative purpose of the institution of marriage. We commonly say that exceptions prove (rather than nullify) the rule and we regularly acknowledge that individual action does not set institutional practice. The inbuilt, biological fact that marriage between a man and a woman usually results in children is not vanquished by authoritative pronouncements.

While the state has a duty to protect the common good present in the institution of marriage, neither the judiciary, the legislative assembly, nor the people can fundamentally "change" this reality, any more than an act of Parliament can make green grass "red" or Niagara Falls "flow up." Marriage is not a creature of the state, but a preexisting universal, human institution with its own integrity. Our ability to recognize what marriage "is" rather than the "rights" of same sex couples is at issue.

It is disingenuous for Ms. Ganley to present hers as a "Catholic voice" when she has distanced herself from the Catholic Church by taking a leading role in the pro-abortion group, Catholics for a Free Choice, and by writing back in 1993 of her "right and serious responsibility to withdraw" from the institution of the Catholic Church. While Ms. Ganley has every right to proclaim her views publicly, we need to realize that she is not shouting from the rooftop of the Catholic household.

When Catholic bishops, united with the Pope, speak on a matter of fundamental morality or belief, definitely teaching a truth that must be held, Catholics understand this act to have the seal of the spirit binding them to that truth. Catholic bishops' teaching on marriage seems very much to be this sort of case.

Dialogue requires honesty. As she decided to bring matters Catholic into the public square, Ms. Ganley should have acknowledged this standard interpretation instead of simply appealing to interviews with passersby or the voice of one "Catholic" politician and insinuating that Canadian bishops are "yes men" taking orders from the Pope rather than courageous shepherds acting collegially on the basis of a thoughtful and historical tradition. I know Ms. Ganley. She is capable of better.

Peterborough, ON

Editor's P.S.:

Rosemary Ganley is assistant editor of the Catholic New Times, Toronto.

The January 30, 2005 edition of the Catholic New Times printed a slightly abridged version of Cardinal Ambrozic's letter to the Prime Minister rejecting same-sex marriage on the top half of page 4. On the bottom half of the same page one Barry Blackburn defended s.s.m., pointing out that the bishops just don't get it that society and marriage are evolving.

On page 14 Rosemary Ganley reports on an article by pro-abortion Frances Kissling, the president of "Catholics for a Free Choice", in the leftist magazine The Nation. Kissling complains that religious men on the left don't understand the need for gay marriage, stem-cell research, reproductive health (code word for contraception and abortion) and gender equality (female priests, etc.).

On page 20, the back page, homosexual activist Jim Loney uses the Catechism's description of marriage ("marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties" and ... this "consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself,") as proof that s.s.m. is divinely sanctioned.