Rome's "shocking" statement.

Living in Canada, where the courts communicate in Charter-speak and politicians in an indecipherable mush called nanny-speak, I had forgotten how bracing it can be to read a clear, direct, and unapologetic position. But I have just read one.

It is the statement issued by the Vatican on July 31, 2003, written by Cardinal Ratzinger and personally approved by Pope John Paul II, somewhat cumbrously entitled Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.

When I finished reading it (available on the Vatican website, Zenit) I confess to being in a state of shock. I knew, you see, that Hugh Owens, a Saskatchewan prison guard, has twice been convicted for citing (not quoting, just citing) Bible verses that condemn homosexuality. I knew that Toronto printer Scott Brockie had been hauled before the contemporary equivalent of the Star Chamber, a human rights tribunal, and convicted of turning down printing business from homosexual activists. I knew of the Christian couple in Prince Edward Island who shut down their Bed and Breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts in their own home. I knew too that to date few voices--none from the mainline Protestant churches--had spoken up in defence of such people. So to read such a clear counter-consensus statement, from the highest authority of the largest Christian denomination in the world, was a real shock. What did Rome say?

You, too, will find this shocking, but here it is; summarized in point form, and quoted verbatim or accurately paraphrased.

The Nature of Homosexuality

1) Under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.

2) Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

3) Unjust discrimination against homosexuals must be avoided.

4) Homosexual inclination is objectively disordered.

5) Homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity.

What Christians (non-Catholics as well as Catholics) are called upon to do:

1) Unmask the ways in which tolerance is exploited in the service of ideology.

2) State clearly the immoral nature of homosexual unions.

3) Remind governments of the need to contain homosexuality within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality.

4) Avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage.

5) If homosexual unions are given the legal status of marriage, " ... exercise the right to conscientious objection."

The Catholic Politician

1) The Catholic lawmaker has a duty to express opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against homosexual marriage. To vote in favour " ... is grossly immoral."

2) If legislation recognizing homosexual marriage is already in force, or comes into force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in all ways possible, including civil disobedience.

Whew! Now how will Chretien, Martin, Rock et al. dance the "personally opposed, but ... " two-step in the face of this unequivocal pronouncement? How will Roman Catholic judges, like Madam Justice Eileen Gillese of the Ontario Court of Appeal, one of the three Ontario judges who ordered recognition of same-sex marriage, square her decision with her religious faith? How will Canadians go on pretending that since we are all liberals now there is no scope for legitimate debate? The Vatican statement was not written because of Canadian developments. It was in preparation for months before three Ontario judges swept aside millennia of human history, societal experience, and religious teaching, in a decision that exhibited scant recognition of the magnitude of the issues it purported to deal with. The Vatican statement addresses a worldwide phenomenon and addresses it from the long view of human history, not the twenty-year view of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

It seems to me that the Vatican statement accomplishes three things: first, it ensures an informed debate, something which used to be thought desirable in a democracy, but something which is unheard of, and considered vaguely threatening, in Canada. Second, it offers a platform for that debate that is quite different from meaningless "rights" talk. Third, and most important, for the largest Christian church to counsel civil disobedience in the face of same-sex marriage suggests that the road ahead is likely to be rocky indeed. Stay tuned.

Ian Hunter is professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario, London, ON.