What's the matter with Catholic voters?

This article is a modest attempt to defend the Judeo-Christian principles upon which Canada was founded and emphasized in the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Recent harassments

The declaration is necessary today in Canada since it is a matter of record that, prior to the 2004 federal election, lawyers for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Society of Canada were summoned by an official with the Department of National Revenue and warned that, if they continued to oppose proposed government legislation on same-sex "marriage," they might lose their charitable status. Perhaps the not so subtle campaign to stifle Christianity began during the Chretien years when he publicly stated that he was a good Catholic, but supported a woman's right to abort her unborn child.

In September of 1998, an official of the prime minister's office, in attendance for the memorial service at Peggy's Cove, NS, for the 229 victims of the Swissair Flight 111 crash, told the United Church minister and the Catholic priest they would not be allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ or the Bible. Again, at the memorial service on Parliament Hill for the 9/11 victims of the World Trade Center holocaust, clergymen played a minor role and were not to invoke the name of Jesus. Not long after that, the cross was removed from the uniforms of military chaplains and the name of Christ was not to be invoked in any public rite that involved the military.

Same-sex "marriage"

In 1998, Members of Parliament, led by Liberal members, voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as "a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others." The majority knew marriage to be a truth that has been universally accepted for centuries and their vote confirmed their personal belief. In 1999, then-Justice Minister Anne McLellan stood in the House of Commons and declared,"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriage."

In August of 2003 when Paul Martin was campaigning for the leadership of the Liberal party he stated: "I believe it is very important that Parliament speaks and that Parliament speaks through the voices of its representatives: Members of Parliament."

Six years after Anne McLellan swore there would be no same-sex "marriage" legislation, and two years after Paul Martin unequivocally stated that the representatives of the people would speak, Martin ordered his ministers and their parliamentary secretaries to overturn their 1998 commitment to traditional marriage and family values by voting as he dictated, or lose their cabinet positions.

No wonder the Anglican Primate of Canada, Most Rev. Michael Peers, in a letter to the Globe and Mail, declared, " Our state religion is a non-religion. Why do we cage our souls?"

Paul Martin and Catholic voters

In May 2005 a poll by The Strategic Council found 63% of those surveyed believe that Martin is the most dishonest of the federal party leaders. Worse still, the same survey found 61% said Martin was the most likely to lie for political gain and 54% said he was the most hypocritical.

Despite the negative results of that poll, Liberals still lead all other political parties in election polls. Comments could be made about the Canadian psyche but let it simply be said the poll results are unbelievably astounding.

What is equally astounding is that Liberal support is greater among Catholics than any other religious group despite the fact that Martin defies Catholic doctrine in supporting abortion and renouncing the sacrament of marriage. Further to that, his ministers, Catholics included with one exception, complied with his dictate to join in his renunciation of the sacrament of marriage and their 1998 vote in defining traditional marriage. It was also found that church-going Catholics are more likely to vote Liberal than non-church-going Catholics. Even more puzzling is why Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and other persons of belief forsake their accepted doctrines in favour of amoral Liberal policies. Figure that one out!

Andre Blais, professor of political science at the University of Montreal, researched the trends of English Canadian Catholics, excluding Quebec, since 1965 and found 18% were more likely to vote Liberal than non-Catholics. In his view, this significantly impacted 15 of 19 Liberal election victories in the past 40 years.

Catholics represent 30% of voters in Ontario, 40% in Atlantic Canada and 20% in the West and their trend to vote Liberal gives that party a stranglehold on elections. Blais told the Catholic Register that "Religion is part of life. It should have, in fact, an impact on how we view society and politics."

He is mystified and wonders if anyone can explain this paradox. Terry Downey, a political scientist and president of St. Mary's University College in Calgary, thinks, "There is a strong sense among Catholics of a private morality, which is not applied to the public realm." He also suggests that Catholics consider themselves a minority and therefore sympathize with Martin's false argument that same-sex "marriage" is a minority rights issue.

Minority "rights" are not absolute

However, minorities do not have rights just because they are minorities. If that were so, minorities such as the visually impaired would have a right to drive; or primary school teachers would have a right to teach in universities; or pharmacists would have a right to practise medicine. These are conditional rights, not absolute rights. People have conditional rights to engage in any activity they choose but only if they have the qualifications. The purpose of marriage in every age, in every nation and in every culture, is that opposite sexes give themselves intimately to each other hopefully to produce children to form families which, in turn, are the bedrock of society. Same-sex couples cannot produce families.

People of faith, including Catholics, know that faith is a gift from God and when they accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour they are obliged to accept all of His teachings. No one who has made that commitment to Christ can, without sinning, pick and choose to practise only those dogmas that suit one, including the sacrament of marriage. But one either accepts all or none!

Catholics need to be educated

Many Catholics have confused opinions with truth. They may think, for instance, that Church authorities should approve of married priests, the ordination of women, that Catholics have a voice in the election of bishops, the appointment of pastors and a host of other Church concerns. Perhaps they should! But those are opinions and are not matters of faith and morals.

When Jesus established His Church, He selected His Apostles and assigned them the spiritual authority to define and interpret his teachings on faith and morals. Jesus knew that Peter and his brother apostles would not live forever and if His truths were to live forever there must be a means to guarantee those teachings. Before His Ascension He promised, "And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of Truth. I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you all that I told you."

And again, Jesus told the Apostles, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus guaranteed His teachings would be preserved for all time by apostolic succession guided by the Holy Spirit on all matters of faith and morals. Jesus does not lie!

Is it so difficult to accept that Jesus cannot deceive? Is it difficult to accept that He would fulfill His promise to be with His Church always? Is it difficult to accept that He would have the successors of His apostles interpret His doctrines? Do we not have judges interpret the laws? Do we not have boards and commissions interpret the policies and regulations of almost every secular activity? Why then can we not accept the Word of God that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church always?

Jesus made it abundantly clear when He told the apostles: "Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me, rejects the One who sent Me."

St. Vincent of Lerins declared, "If one yields ground on any single point of Catholic doctrine, one will later have to yield on another and again on another, and so on until such surrenders come to be something normal and acceptable. And when one gets used to rejecting dogma bit by bit, the final result will be the repudiation of it altogether."

We all have a choice: either defend Christianity or support the secularization of the nation led by our political masters.

The conclusion should be obvious: if Catholics do not understand the language and dictates of Christ, it is time to revisit Catholic doctrine and inform their conscience.

J Esmond Barry is a man who lives in Saint John, NB. He occasionally contributes to his diocesan newspaper, The New Freedman, from which this article is reprinted