SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CANADA

CONTENTS OF BISHOP HENRY'S INITIAL LETTER

Sponsored link.

About the pastoral letters:

In 2005-JAN,  Bishop Frederick B. Henry (1943 -) wrote a pastoral letter to fellow Roman Catholics in the Diocese of Calgary, Alberta concerning Same-Sex Marriage (SSM). ₁ The letter was read to about 250,000 Roman Catholics in churches throughout southern Alberta on 2005-JAN-16. It is described below.

During 2005-MAY, he issued a second pastoral letter on the same topic.

Some of the main topics raised in the first letter:

The letter made a number of points, most of which are either statements of fact, or teachings which match those of the Roman Catholic Church about same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Most echo a statement approved by Pope John Paul in a 12-page set of guidelines on same-sex relationships which said: "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," it says. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." ₂

The points which appear to be factual and/or which match church teachings:

We have added our own comments to points raised by Bishop Henry.

One point that appears to be in error:

An additional point in the first letter:

He does make an additional point, which is his personal interpretation of what motivates supporters of SSM. He believes that those promoting SSM are not inspired by the desire that same-sex couples:

Presumably Bishop Henry also believes that supporters of SSM are not motivated by a desire to see same-sex couples and their children to have an increased level of security -- equal to those enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples and their children.

Instead, Bishop Henry suggests that their motivation is to force society to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal. The term "homosexual lifestyle" is generally defined by religious conservatives as referring to same-sex sexual behavior. By calling it a "lifestyle" they imply that homosexual orientation is a choice, like other lifestyles such as living in the country rather than the city, marrying instead of remaining single, traveling by mass transit instead of a personal automobile, etc. However, essentially all gays, lesbians, bisexuals, religious liberals, mental health professionals, and human sexuality researchers believe that homosexual orientation can neither be chosen nor changed.

A tenth point in the first: an ambiguous call for government oppression:

In a remarkable paragraph, he states:

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

The first paragraph associates homosexuality -- by which he presumably means homosexual behavior -- with adultery, prostitution and distribution of pornography -- four activities which Bishop Henry correctly describe as attacks on the family unit.

Others look upon homosexuality as an orientation, one that is not chosen and is unchangeable, and one of three sexual orientations which are morally neutral. They look upon the availability of SSM as the most family-positive development for same-sex couples.

The reference to the demand that the government "must use its coercive power" appears to have distressed many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, civil libertarians, etc. Unfortunately, Bishop Henry did not specifically define the form that the government's "coercive power" is to take.

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English explains that "coerce" comes from the Latin word "coercere" which means to physically restrain. It means, in English, to "persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats."

Many readers of Bishop Henry's letter have assumed that he is suggesting that governments harass, fine, or assign jail sentences to persons engaging in same-sex behavior, even if performed in private as part of a loving committed relationship. Certainly, governments in other countries use this type of coercive force.

It is doubtful that he would include capital punishment as an example of coercive force, because the Church opposes the death penalty, and Canada stopped hanging people decades ago. But many readers interpret the letter as advocating all government coercion short of execution against sexually active gays and lesbians.

One factor does not seem to have been discussed in the media: the possible effect of Bishop Henry's letter on the number of gay-bashing incidents in the country. When a bishop of the largest religious institution in Canada calls for the government to use its coercive power against gays and lesbians, susceptible individuals may have become convinced that individual coercive force -- in the form of physical attacks -- might be acceptable behavior. Unfortunately, Bishop Henry did not incorporate a statement in his pastoral letter specifically calling on people to refrain from assaulting homosexuals.

An eleventh point: homosexual behavior is evil:

Following the above paragraph is one almost as notable:

"It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private."

Here, Bishop Henry implies that homosexual activities go beyond merely being sinful within his religious terms of reference. He considers them to be evil acts.

References used:

1. F.B. Henry, "On Same-Sex Marriage," 2005-JAN, at: http://www.rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca/
2. "Vatican campaigns against same-sex marriage," CBC News, 2003-JUL-31, at: http://www.cbc.ca/
3. Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation," 1987-MAR-10, at: http://www.catholic.com/

Copyright © 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally posted: 2005-JUL-15
Latest update: 2005-NOV-03
Author: B.A. Robinson