Home
Stepping Stones
The Fountain
sKrATch Pad
Dec. 6/89
Aug. 29, 2003Two links before I start:
- Messages from the Archdiocese of Toronto
- It's been over 10 years since this song was written, but it's sadly still relevant today in many places.
Dear Cardinal Ambrozic, For the past month or so, I've listened to your deacons and priests at St. Michaels preach about tolerance, about being people of good Christian faith, and about understanding and loving others. Then, at the end of the mass, letters written by you and by the pope or issued by the Archdiocese of Toronto are read urging all of us to denounce the recent moves by Parliament to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, asking us to sign your petitions for this purpose and to join with you in asking for the denial of adoption to same sex couples.
I recognize why the faith and your position in the church requires you to do this; the church has spoken against homosexuality for as long as it has been around. However, while I recognize the motivation of the Catholic church, I cannot, even as a Catholic, condone the pressure tactics the church has been using to prevent this legislation from taking place.
Canada is not a theocratic society. It is not run by the Catholic church, nor are the majority of citizens in Canada Catholic. This country is made up of a myriad of religions and cultures, not all of whom agree with your stance on same sex marriages. If, for example, the United Church were to decide to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, it is not for the Catholic church to tell them yea or nay. They are not within your jurisdiction. By the same token, the government of Canada, being a secular institution, is also not within your jurisdiction. Keep in mind too that of those polled in Canada (according to Macleans magazine), 49% are for the change of the definition of marriage, while 49% are against. Thus, the Church does not represent a majority of Canadians (or even, if you look at the statistics, of Catholics) in its stance either.
As to the definition of marriage, its change in the Canadian Legislation would not, I believe, force the Catholic Church to act against its will. There is still a clause about freedom of religion after all. Just because same sex couples are able to be married and be recognized as married does not mean that the Church would be forced to marry them. You say that the very sanctity of marriage as it stands now helps to protect the moral fabric of society. I say that there are many married couples now that respect the moral fabric of society even less than the same sex couples who wish to be recognized as such. Ask the man who cheats on his wife and neglects his children how he feels about the moral fabric of society. Ask the producers of reality shows that culminate in random marriages to strangers about the moral fabric of society.
Marriage is not simply for the purpose of having children. Many children are born out of wedlock, and many couples who do marry have no wish for children whatsoever and take measures against this happening. Marriage is about living in a communion of love with another person - someone who, hopefully, will accompany another person through all the stages of their life journey. Marriage is first and foremost a reflection in two people of the love between God and Humankind. This, I learned from the Church. What does it matter that those two people are man and woman or two of the same kind? So long as the love and the respect is present, there is in my eyes no breech of morality.
You, as a church, ask that others respect your right to believe as you wish, and to respect your right to do as you wish. All homosexual couples ask for is to be accorded the same respect and dignity. To discount their right to marriage to disallow them the right to be recognized as next of kin of their partners, and to be recognized as a spouse with all the priviledges and rights that implies, in case of emergency and in other aspects of life. Marriage to them is not a political tool, nor indeed is the wish to be considered as viable parents for adoption. These are simply options that they would like to have open to them just like everyone else. All they ask for is the same rights as everyone else in society. They do not choose to be different; they do, however, make the most of what life gives them. And asking for the same rights as others is no worse than women in the 50's asking to be considered "persons" under the law.
In essence, the change of the definition of marriage in the Canadian constitution will not affect the Church's rights to freedom of religion. So long as the law does not force a religious institution to act against its beliefs (i.e., marry homosexual couples against the institution's will), I do not see how the change in the constitution will affect the Church. Changing the definition of marriage will do as much for the decay of morality as recognizing women and blacks as people did back in the earlier part of the 20th Century. Which is to say that social morality as it stands will not be affected by this one move. Instead, it would bring about more tolerance and encourage respect and love towards all people no matter how different or similar they are to the so-called "norm" of society (whatever that may be).
And isn't that what Jesus meant when he commanded us to love ourselves and love our neighbour?
Yours,
Kat Lai,
In all other aspects a faithful, Catholic girl.
NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: If any of you read this and want to respond, feel free, but keep it clean. Remember, it took me a lot of courage to post this up in the first place, even if it is a small audience that I write for. (Oh, and don't forget to change the _AT_ to '@' and _DOT_ to '.' blah blah mailbot avoidance-cakes)
Home |
Stepping Stones |
The Fountain |
sKrATch Pad |
Dec. 6/89 |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |