What is Cardinal Ambrozic's position on same-sex benefits?

In late May 1999, following the Supreme Court ruling, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic of Toronto sent a letter to the federal government and had it circulated in archdiocesan parishes. The circular had neither a date, nor a signature.

Readers may recall the Archbishop's belated but decisive action in 1995 when he opposed a same-sex marriage bill of Bob Rae's NDP government. The bill was defeated.

Now, four years later, the letter printed below seems to carry different sentiments. I raise some questions at the end and ask our readers to send in their observations as to how you understand this latest letter. Numerals for the paragraphs have been added for convenience.

Text of letter

(1) "The traditional understanding common to all the world's great religions is that marriage is a sanctified union of a man and a woman who have joined together in love and are called to transmit life. They and their children constitute the family--the original cell of social life. As the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, said recently in St. Louis:

'In their primary mission of communicating love to each other, of being co-creators with God of human life, and of transmitting the love of God to their children, parents must know that they are fully supported by the Church and by society.'

(2) "The long-term consequences of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in M v. H are difficult to predict, but cannot be good because the decision is based on flawed philosophical, theological, and biological premises. The Court adopts an approach that may serve to undermine our traditional understanding of marriage and family, and the nature of spousal and conjugal relationships.

(3) "The teaching of the Church has been that homosexuals must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard is wrong. This can be done without affecting the sanctity of marriage.

(4) "The Court has shown an understandable desire to see justice done in the dissolution of the relationship in this particular case. Legislatures have been reluctant to extend legal protection to those in homosexual relationships because they support the traditional understanding of marriage and family. Since the legislative tools to do justice in these specific circumstances did not exist, the Court felt compelled to require that legislation designed to protect the family be changed.

(5) "The time has come for legislation that fully protects the traditional understanding of family and marriage, and that also provides basic legal protection to individuals involved in nontraditional domestic relationships of economic interdependency, whether sexual intimacy is present or not.

(6) "It is hoped that in coming to grips with the decision of the Court in M v. H, the Government of Ontario will reassert the primacy of the traditional understanding of marriage and family, but will at the same time ensure that other domestic relationships of economic interdependency are addressed."

Questions

Editor: I support paragraphs one and two.

Paragraph 3, however, represents only ha if the teaching of the Church. The other side deals with just discrimination.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 baffle me.

Paragraph 4 speaks of how the Court "has shown an understandable desire to see justice done." As I explain above, the Court's view of "justice" in marital matters seems to have very little, if anything, in common with that of Christian teaching. I fail to see why an immoral relationship between two women suddenly becomes the basis for acts of "justice ".

Paragraph 5 introduces an entirely new concept, that of economic interdependency as a reason for benefits (pensions, inheritance, etc.) now reserved to married people. The letter slides this in as if this were the most normal thing in the world, which, of course, it isn't. Then it seems to suggest that once this (highly unlikely) idea is adopted, benefits and pension rights for homosexuals will fit in nicely.

The last paragraph, number 6, has been overtaken by events already.

Please send us your comments.