CATHOLIC GROUP SAYS CARDINAL WRONG TO SAY CHARTER OF RIGHTS SHOULDN’T APPLY TO GAYS AND LESBIANS

Most Canadian Catholics disagree with church on marriage issue

(See below for Cardinal Ambrozic's letter)

Toronto, January 19, 2005. Toronto Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic’s call to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to remove gays and lesbians from the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is inappropriate and does not reflect the views of most Canadian Catholics, says a Toronto-based group of progressive Catholics.

“The same law that protects the religious freedoms of Catholics to practice our faith – the Charter of Rights – also protects lesbian and gay people,” says Helen Kennedy, a former Toronto-area city councillor and spokesperson for Challenge The Church. “The Charter of Rights is what guarantees minority rights. You can’t switch it on and off.”

“Cardinal Ambrozic isn’t speaking for me and he certainly isn’t speaking for most Canadian Catholics on this issue,” said Ms. Kennedy.

An August 2003 Environics poll showed 57% of Canadian Catholics back equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Challenge The Church is a group of progressive Catholics who support human rights and equality. It includes lay people as well as former clergy and religious.

“Lesbian and gay people have been fighting for decades to obtain dignity and respect. There is no more need for delay. There is need for action – Parliament must support equal marriage legislation,” said Ms. Kennedy.

Cardinal Ambrozic’s comments come on the heels of Calgary Bishop Fred Henry’s call for governments to “proscribe or curtail” homosexuality.

“This is more worrisome evidence that many opponents of equal marriage want to defeat marriage legislation as a platform to pursue a broader agenda to limit the rights of lesbian and gay people in Canada,” said Ms. Kennedy.

“It has become evident that defeating the equal-marriage bill is a must-win for those who want to roll back the clock on human rights,” she added.

An Environics poll released last week showed most Canadians continue support the government’s same-sex marriage legislation. Backing is particularly strong in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. More details are available from Environics.

- 30 -

For more information contact:
Helen Kennedy
Challenge The Church (progressive Catholics)
hkennedy@rogers.blackberry.net


TEXT OF CARDINAL AMBROZIC'S LETTER:

JAN 19, 2005, GLOBE AND MAIL, PAGE: A19 (COMMENT)

An open letter: Why the rush on same-sex marriage?

Dear Prime Minister,

I understand the difficulty in which recent decisions of various courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have left the Government of Canada regarding the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage. Parliament is about to consider legislation to redefine marriage as a lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others, thus paving the way for same-sex marriages. So far, the debate has been among lawyers. It is time for there to be a debate in Canadian society as a whole. It is time for ordinary Canadians to be given sufficient opportunity to discuss the issues and to reflect on the deeper implications before a debate occurs in Parliament and a decision is made that could irrevocably change the nature of marriage and the family in Canada.

My purpose in writing this open letter to you is to urge caution in taking this step toward the redefinition of marriage. We all would do well to pause reflectively before we alter social structures like marriage and the family that lie at the core of our society, and that represent the accumulated wisdom and experience of the ages.

The conjugal partnership of a man and a woman is the beginning and basis of human society, and the family is the first and vital cell of society. Tampering with marriage and the family poses significant social risks.

Can we say with certainty what the social outcome of a redefinition of marriage would be? In all humility, none of us can do so. Human sexuality is a powerful force, which society has acknowledged through many of our laws and social customs.

If same-sex marriage receives the approval of Parliament, then what?

The law is a teacher. Does Canadian society as a whole, and do parents in particular, understand what the law will be teaching in this instance? It will be teaching that homosexual activity and heterosexual activity are morally equivalent. Public schools will be required to provide sex education in that light. Many parents, religious and non-religious, would not agree, nor would many, if not the majority, of Canadians. Is it fair to put children in the position of having to reconcile the values and beliefs of their parents with a novel state-sponsored understanding of marriage that may not be truly supported by the majority of Canadians?

Prime Minister, have you received assurances from the premiers that they are providing legislative protection for the right of religious officials and organizations to decline to celebrate same-sex marriages that are contrary to their faith? Are you prepared to pass legislation in the absence of such assurances?

An open and full public debate would explore these and other implications of the proposed redefinition of marriage.

I urge you, Prime Minister, to table a bill that legislatively enacts the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage, coupled with a clause that provides for the legislation to take effect notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As you know, the so-called notwithstanding clause has a five-year lifespan. A five-year period will allow this national discussion sufficient time to occur and to ripen into a sober and careful decision. It will give time for Canada to observe the social experiments now under way in Belgium and the Netherlands, and in other places where legislation implementing same-sex marriage might occur.

Some will argue that the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter is wrong in principle. I must respectfully disagree. The notwithstanding clause was inserted to recognize parliamentary supremacy and the need for democratic oversight for the courts. No Canadian can say that the courts always get things right. Judges are not elected and are ultimately not accountable for their decisions. Fundamental social change should only occur with the consent of the people through their democratic institutions. This understanding of the role of Parliament led to the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. Its use in the context of same-sex marriage would be most appropriate.

Finally, Prime Minister, you will no doubt agree that freedom of conscience is fundamental to our society. Members of Parliament must be free to vote in accordance with their consciences on a matter as basic to our social structure as the definition of marriage. I urge you to permit all parliamentarians, cabinet ministers included, to vote their consciences on any legislation that is put to a vote in Parliament on the issue of marriage.

Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic is Archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Toronto.