Compare and Contrast

In my web travels yesterday, I found myself roaming around the websites of two different church bodies - the United Church of Canada and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary, Alberta.

Both websites had "pastoral letters" from the leaders of these respective church bodies. My understanding of the notion of a Pastoral Letter is that it is a means for senior clergy to communicate their church's position and teachings on a topic to both local church clergy as well as the congregation. As such, I would expect a certain amount of reference to scripture, or at the very least to other church writings on a topic. Otherwise, such letters essentially become a political manifesto.

I've read and dissected Bishop Henry's "pastoral letters" for their content before, and that is not my intention here. I've picked out the two of Bishop Henry's articles that are obviously intended to be pastoral letters - January 2005, and May 2005.

For contrast, I present Rt. Rev. Peter Short's "Pastoral Letter" from the end of June.

A random search of the web for "Pastoral Letters" turned up this one on a related topic from an American Bishop.

The first thing that struck me was the stark difference in content between Bishop Henry's "Pastoral Letters", and the other two that I have presented. Both Moderator Short and Bishop Thomas Daily speak of scripture and their respective interpretation of it. Bishop Henry's letters may be written from the perspective of Roman Catholic teachings on the subject, but do not speak in terms of those teachings.

Moderator Short's letter is rather interesting in the fact that while it speaks to the secular issues involved, he also addresses the reality of the impact of those issues on congregations. Rev. Short takes on the divisions and concerns of the various congregations in the context of scripture and its interpretation. He is clearly speaking to his church, and doing so in terms of the faith he believes in.

Additionally, Bishop Henry has been republishing his "Pastoral Letters" almost verbatim in the Calgary Sun as his "monthly column" recently.

May 1, 2005 Column for Calgary Sun
May 1 Pastoral Letter

There are other examples, if you are willing to compare his monthly Diocese columns with what has appeared in the Sun - it's not just his Pastoral Letters that are at play here.

To me there's a duplicity here. In principle, a Pastoral Letter is a vehicle for communication within the organization of the church. As such, publishing those letters in any church-owned vehicle is quite legitimate. Further, I would hope that such a document would go some distance in trying to explain the church's position on a topic with respect to the church's teachings. Bishop Henry's writings do not do this - they don't even appear to pay lip service to the topic of the theology behind his arguments. However, when Bishop Henry's "Pastoral Letters" happen to be published in a local newspaper - more or less verbatim - it seems to me that he has stepped out from behind the 'veil' of Church communication, and into the secular "public square". No matter how "based on his faith" those columns are, they are now a fundamentally a part of the public discourse outside of the Church.

It is here that the Bishop finds himself in an awkward place. Not only are his Pastoral Letters being multiply published outside of the Church, they are now subject to scrutiny by bodies that are not bound by the teachings of the Bishop's faith. The stark difference in structure and content between other "Pastoral Letters" and Bishop Henry's is striking. One could argue quite easily that Bishop Henry is in fact writing a political manifesto, not a document of religious doctrine.

It is in this regard, along with some of the words the Bishop's letters have used that complaints now before the Alberta Human Rights Commission will need to be considered. While Bishop Henry will continue to claim that his Charter Right to Freedom of Religion is being impinged upon by the very complaints to the human rights commission in Alberta, there is a considerable argument that Bishop Henry is playing politics while trying to hide behind the veil of his position as a senior member of the clergy.

In comparison, I doubt that one could make any claim against Rev. Short's pastoral letter, no matter how strongly one disagrees with it, as it is clearly intended for consumption within his church. Similarly, Bishop Daily's letter is so clearly written in terms of church teachings that it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that he is doing anything outside of acting in his role as guide to the congregations of his diocese.

This will be interesting indeed

In January, Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry had the following "pastoral letter" read out to the congregations within the diocese (and I imagine, quite a number of other dioceses followed suit).

Sure enough, Bishop Henry's letter has resulted in a human rights complaint in Alberta.

To see how this plays out will indeed be interesting, for it will be one of those rare cases that actually tests the boundaries between the fundamental freedoms (in particular, Religion (2a) and Expression (2b) in section 2 of the Charter of Rights, Equality Rights (section 15), and the boundaries laid out in the 'hate propaganda' section of the Criminal Code. (No, this isn't a criminal complaint per se, but you can be sure that sections 318, 319 of the criminal code will be part of the discussion.

The article on CTV suggests that the complaint against Bishop Henry takes issue with the aspects of Bishop Henry's article that associate homosexuality with evil, pornography etc, and call upon the government to suppress homosexuality through law.

Given that Calgary is overwhelming represented by Conservative MPs in Ottawa, it's unlikely that any of the political representatives would object to the content of Bishop Henry's letter.

I dissected Bishop Henry's letter in a rant earlier this year, and I don't see any point in rehashing it. At the moment, the Bishop is busy lapping up all of the media attention he is attracting. In a few months, when this issue actually gets into real discussion, that's when the good Bishop may find it necessary to eat a little "humble pie". (Of course, Alberta's human rights tribunal doesn't exactly have a stellar track record...)

While I respect Bishop Henry's right to express his opinions, and his obligation to represent the Roman Catholic Church's position on these and other issues, there must also be boundaries to what is said. Bishop Henry's letter certainly was an illogical rant, but whether it stepped into the realm of inciting discriminatory behaviour is open to some discussion. I can understand the reasoning of the complaint raised, but at the same time, it's far from clear that Bishop Henry has necessarily overstepped his bounds either.

In several dimensions, this complaint may be as important as the Delwin Vriend case a few years ago. (Of course, the amount of howling out of the Klein government over that one doesn't make me overly optimistic for the future of this case.

More cynically, I'm beginning to suspect that Bishop Henry is playing his cards to raise his public profile with an eye to eventually running for public office.

[Update]:


Something to consider looking at the Bishop's letter. What if his pastoral letter had been talking about Jewish people, or Asians? If Bishop Henry had asserted that the coercive power of the government should be used to suppress these peoples, what would the reaction be?

A quote I saw a long time ago read "Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". Does the Bishop's letter cross that line? Much food for thought...

Cogito, Ergo Rant

... I think, therefore I rant...

Once again, Bishop Fred Henry has opened his obnoxious mouth on the issue of same-gender marriage in a "pastoral letter".

If I can find the full text of the letter, I'll give it a more detailed analysis. Right now, all I can find is the excerpts posted on the Calgary Herald's website.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't want Bishop Henry silenced. His voice is a legitimate part of the discourse in this country. However, Bishop Henry is treading dangerously close, if not over, the line between legitimate religious discourse and political lobby. As a private citizen, Bishop Henry is free to advocate however he should see fit. However, in doing so via pastoral letters, the Bishop is abusing his position as the Bishop by attempting to dictate how his parishoners should behave politically. More pointedly, since he is clearly acting in his official capacity as Bishop, Henry is taking his diocese into the realm of political lobby.

What's wrong with that? you might ask. Per se, nothing - except for a few clauses in the tax law that give Church's and other charitable organizations significant privileges. However, those privileges are bounded, and there are specific rules for political lobby organizations. There has been quite a hue and cry over phone calls to church leaders from CCRA officials warning leaders like Henry that their actions could result in the Church losing their charitable organization status. This is not an attempt to silence Bishop Henry - it's a warning that he is treading dangerously close to a line in the laws of this land. (Like it or not, the law has its boundaries - and some of them are obscure and come along to bite when you least expect them) As he moves towards political activism, and away from scriptural discussion of the issues, leaders like Henry must be more careful to separate their actions as church leaders and as private citizens.

In an era where more and more people are drifting away from the Roman Catholic Church, one can only be agog at the stubborn antics of people like Bishop Henry. His outright hostility towards other human beings is astonishing. His wilfull ignorance of the accrued knowledge since psychology/psychiatry emerged in their modern forms only serves to reinforce the suspicion that many people view churches with. There was a time when churches served a real purpose in the community - today, under the leadership of people like Fred Henry, the Church is becoming a source not of enlightenment and contemplation, but instead a place where real thought is suppressed, and replaced instead by blind obeyance of the church leadership.

Bishop Henry - the challenge to you is simple. Make your case, and make it in terms of legitimate religious discussion. As Bishop, you are beholden to the teachings of your church - that's fine. Your constant demands that the government legislate this way or that based on your scriptural beliefs are offensive to those who do not subscribe to your assumptions. I don't care what you advocate to your parishoners in the realm of spiritual belief. I do care when you choose to disrespect Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and demand that legislation reflective of your dogma be imposed on me.

Your right to swing your fist ends precisely where my nose begins!

Bishop Henry Speaks - Does Stelmach Listen?

I sure as heck hope not. Bishop Henry's recent letter to Stelmach showed up on Zenit - the Roman Catholic Church's "news release" agency.

[Editor's Note]: I see that Zenit has pulled the letter itself off their English Front Page. I have archived a copy for reference purposes.

[Update 21:16]
I see that Bishop Henry has posted his letter on the diocese website
[/Update]
Bishop Henry, as we have seen before, is once again in the business of confusing issues and misconstruing the situations.

Consider the following:

April 2008: The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered an evangelical Christian charity, Christian Horizons, to rescind its morality code and require employees to undergo anti-discriminatory training. In addition, Christian Horizons has been ordered to pay $23,000 plus lost wages for terminating Connie Heritz’s employment based on a morality code which she freely and knowingly signed as a condition of employment and which she failed to adhere to.

Every religious institution should have the jurisdictional independence to determine its own confessions, doctrines and ordinances, including conditions of employment.

Hmmm...Christian Horizons...I've heard that name before. Oh yes! Here it is, in all its shining glory. The Bishop has missed a very key aspect of the issue in this case - namely that Christian Horizons used its "moral code" not merely to regulate the lives of its employees outside of work, but allowed a poisonous, harassing working environment to fester with respect to Connie Heintz.

I have some problems with these "moral codes" being imposed by employers (regardless of faith) that attempt to strictly regulate someone's life outside of the workplace. It strikes me as an unreasonable invasion of privacy. However, if Canadian Law allows for it in some capacity, that's fine as long as it doesn't get modified "on the fly" - as happened with Julie Nemecek.

Next up, we have Bishop Henry pulling on a recent ruling in Saskatchewan regarding a Marriage Commissioner who refused to serve a gay couple.

Nichols, who has performed nearly 2,000 marriages since 1983, had referred the couple to another marriage commissioner because he said his religious beliefs (Baptist) kept him from performing the ceremony.

The conflict between social pressure and the demands of right conscience can lead to the dilemma either of abandoning a profession or of compromising one's convictions. Faced with that tension, despite the ruling of the Commission, we must remember that there is a middle path which opens up before workers who are faithful to their conscience.

Hold on a second, here Bishop. We are talking about someone who is being paid out of the public purse to perform a legal public service. Since when did the benefit of the law and government become subject to the moral assessment of the public functionary? Am I going to be subjected to someone's "moral assessment" (and objections) next time I go to renew my driver's license? I certainly hope not!

If the man wishes to hide behind his religious beliefs to justify not providng service, then let him become an ordained minister and carry out his marriage duties in that capacity. Otherwise he is essentially an agent of the government, and is obliged to conduct himself accordingly.

Section 30 of the Alberta Human Rights Act states: “Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings.” It would also seem that this panel is also not bound by reasonable argument or the elementary rules of logic but is free to skewer anyone not espousing and proclaiming politically correct views. Darren Lund, the complainant, said that Boissoin’s words in his 2002 letter to the Red Deer Advocate were hateful, and furthermore, an assault on a gay teenager three weeks later could be connected to them. No proof of either was presented.

Lori Andreachuk, the chairperson of the Tribunal, agreed that his words were “likely” to expose gays, “a vulnerable” group, to hatred due to their sexual orientation. No court in the land would connect the letter and the assault but this silly tribunal did.

Hmmm...if the only issue involved was the assault that Bishop Henry is referring to, I might consider agreeing with him. However, there is quite a bit more to the Boissoin case than that. (The actual decision is here)

Second, with the exception of Mr. Boissoin, all of the witnesses and intervenors in the case concur with the linkage of the assault in question and Boissoin's letter - including the Attorney General of Alberta. (This is Alberta, we are talking about - a province that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend before the AHRC would even look at a case involving GLBT rights!)

After ranting on further about Boissoin, Bishop Henry concludes with the following:

Mr. Premier, we have talked enough about the inadequate provisions of and appointment to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunals, it is time to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act ("No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons") and to protect the rights of religious freedom. Every person has the right to make public statements and participate in public debate on religious grounds.

Hold it a second, Bishop. Just because someone professes to having a faith of some sort doesn't make every statement they make "faithful". The white supremacist nutcases cloak themselves in a warped form of Christianity, and I dare say that just about every other community has its faith.

In essence, Bishop Henry is demanding that free license be given to all forms of public bigotry in the name of "religious freedom". Think on the implications of his demands for a moment. While Bishop Henry, along with Boissoin and allies, are thinking in terms of their glorious crusade against homosexuality, they would be giving a free pass to all sorts of hatemongers who target any group that they can bully.

In all of the cases that Bishop Henry cites, he has erroneously assumed that it is all about "matters of faith", and in doing so has clearly disregarded the reality that matters of faith must be handled with a certain level of decorum. Using religion as an excuse to promote bigotry, deny services, or to poison the workplace environment is an unacceptable exercise of that freedom.

I have seen others write their opposition to GLBT rights on religious grounds without invoking blatant falsehoods or making spurious inferences that cannot be substantiated. It is possible to do, and there are still valid reasons why the HRC construct remains a valid, extra-judicial process.

The Bishop Speaketh

I see Bishop Henry is spouting off about marriage again.

Most of Henry's reasoning is the usual drivel, rooted in the usual assumptions:

It is incongruous to grant “marital” status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life. Another obstacle is the absence of the conditions for that interpersonal complementarity between male and female, that communion of life and love at both the physical-biological and the psychological levels.

Of course, Bishop Henry is conveniently ignoring so many realities here it's not even funny. The Bishop for starters is continuing his usual denial that GLBT relationships are any different from heterosexual relationships in their underlying emotional content. This is of course, an assertion that the Bishop can freely make, but can never prove (in fact the rational evidence speaks a very different story).

He's come up with an interesting way to verbally invalidate anything that isn't a church sanctified marriage - the Bishop has begun using the term "de facto union" to describe family units which fall outside of his narrow bounds:

The term, “de facto unions”, not only includes the 0.6% of same-sex coupledom, but a whole series of heterosexual human realities whose common element is that of being forms of cohabitation which are not marriage.

De facto unions are characterized precisely by the fact that they ignore, postpone, or even reject the conjugal commitment.

Stop right there. Because this is the point where the Bishop's entire argument collapses when brought into the secular world of governance and law. (Which is precisely what not only the GLBT rights discussion is about, but also what has driven changes in our government's approach to marriage outside the sanctification of the churches in areas such as common-law households)

Within the body of the Catholic Church - or any other Church, I don't really care how the group chooses to define marriage and what rituals they wrap around it. Whatever "floats your boat".

However, Bishop Henry is missing things quite badly. He proceeds to attempt to demonstrate how non-marital relationships are inferior:

Some other persons who live together justify this choice because of economic reasons or to avoid legal difficulties. The real motives are often much deeper. There is often an underlying mentality
that gives little value to sexuality, influenced more or less by pragmatism and hedonism, as well as by a conception of love detached from any responsibility.

In other cases, de facto unions are formed by persons who were previously divorced and are thus an alternative to marriage.

Few things annoy me faster than some moron making broad sweeping statements about the motives of people they clearly haven't even tried to interact with. Such is the case with Bishop Henry here. The motives of couples that choose to live "outside" his sanctified notion of marriage are none of his business, nor can he legitimately claim to have any real knowledge of such situations. It's obvious that the Bishop is working from stereotypes that were unrealistic by the 1970s, and has yet to wake up and smell the coffee.

His second point about "love without responsibility" is a classic Catholic guilt line - basically sex not only can have consequences, but you should feel horrendously guilty about them. Marriage does not "sanctify" sexual activity, and goodness knows I've known more than enough couples who are 'married in all but name' and raise families quite successfully. For the Bishop to claim that such relationships are lesser simply because they are not "sanctified" by his faith is pure, unadulterated crap.

It's interesting how the "Family Values" crowd turns out to be outright hypocrites in these matters. They love to parade about and claim that they are "all about the welfare of the children". However, if you look at Bishop Henry's logic today, it's fairly apparent that his position is sufficiently broad that it would also suggest removing recognition for long-term "common-law" relationships as well. The laws were changed in the 1980s to render long-term common-law relationships (those of a duration greater than 1 year) legally equivalent to married - especially where matters such as common property and other legal/economic entanglements are concerned. This was done quite specifically to benefit children who often found themselves destitute when one of the partners kicked the other out.

While I'm sure that Bishop Henry will look at such situations as reinforcing his point about the instability of common-law relationships, he would be ignoring the immense industry that is divorce law in Canada (or the United States), as well as the perfidity of those who within the "sanctified boundaries" of marriage engage in practices ranging from spousal abuse to child neglect or worse. He would also be ignoring the number of completely dysfunctional couples who "stayed married for the children", only to wind up raising children who were psychologically damaged by the constant tensions and conflict in the household. (Oh yes, let's not ignore the cases where one spouse or another simply walked out and never came back)

Now, just in case you think I'm being over the top about interpreting Bishop Henry so broadly, consider the following paragraph:

Furthermore, equality before the law must respect the principle of justice which means treating equals equally, and what is different differently: i.e. to give each one his due in justice.

This principle of justice is violated if “de facto unions” are given a juridical treatment similar or equivalent to the family based on marriage. If the family based on marriage and de facto unions are neither similar nor equivalent in their duties, functions and services in society, then they should not be similar or equivalent in their juridical status.

If the Bishop's position were to be reflected in law, we would step back to an era that existed somewhere in the 1960s (if it was that good). Equality before the law means just that. Why should a couple who has been sharing their lives for fifteen years have a different set of rules when it comes to the legal status of that relationship simply because no cleric ever "blessed" that union.

There are compelling reasons to legally recognize a variety of "atypical" family structures. Those that come to mind include protecting the partners and any children involved from destitution should the relationship break down. This means that common property has to be treated equitably, regardless of whether a sanctified marriage exists or not.

The second point, and this has happened with far greater publicity in the United States than in Canada, is the protection of the wishes of either partner with respect to wills and decisions about end of life medical intervention. In far too many cases a partner's biological family will shut out a long-term partner from the decision making process (especially where it is a same-sex relationship), and will apply to the courts to render any existing will invalid. This behaviour is inhuman at best and despicable is probably a better way to frame it. In these situations, long term partners are not granted any relief by the courts, and wind up grieving alone and sometimes are subjected to immediate poverty as key assets were held in common.

As I say, I don't care what Bishop Henry wants the Catholic Church to do. I do care when Bishop Henry starts trying to dictate that the rest of the world should behave as he believes is proper. In his objections to legal recognition of atypical family structures, I argue that the Bishop is dead wrong in both his suppositions.

Claims about the "needs of the children" with respect to same-gender couples are largely assertion with no corroborating evidence to support them.

Bishop Henry Should Check His Sources

Silly me - I should know better than to go past the Calgary Sun's website - I inevitably make the mistake of looking through the editorials, and I found Bishop Henry has posted another one of his misinformed diatribes about the evils of affording sexual minorities rights.

Bishop Henry quoted a "study" (more of an essay, really), by an organization calling itself "American College of Pediatricians". This study is what Bishop Henry uses to justify yet another multi-layered, irrational tirade.

Quoth the Good Bishop:

In January 2004, The American College of Pediatricians concluded: "The research literature on child- rearing by homosexual parents is limited.

"The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, neither by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."(Human Parenting: Is It Time for Change?)

Hmmm...thinks I - I should go take a look at this so-called study - it's conclusions run at considerable odds to results that have been rattling around in the psychological and psychiatric literature for quite some years. Superficially, the report appears to be fairly well researched - there's some 30-odd footnotes at the end - not bad for a few hundred words of material.

I will agree with one statement out of the conclusions - "The research literature on child- rearing by homosexual parents is limited." When you are talking about a minority group that is only documented at 3% - 5% of the population (based on census data), any research in that sub-population is going to be challenged to find a sufficiently large sample size upon which to base results. That is valid criticism of the literature - however, it does not invalidate the existing body.

However, upon further digging, you start to realize that the people that they are quoting from are people like J. Michael Bailey, a man whose writings are politely described as controversial, and often are arguably flawed. The report also vastly mangles the conclusions and observations of other papers that they have referenced.

A random sampling of the authors of the papers referred to turned up the following:

Robert Lerner, PhD. - Works in association with U.S. Government (read - BushCo)
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur - Authors of a book about the evils of single parenting that are often quoted by the pro-marriage/pro-family crowd.
P. Morgan - published by the "Christian Institute" - need I say more?

I wasn't able to check all of the papers referenced conveniently - I found enough dubious research in the survey to become suspicious of the conclusions drawn.

Looking around the website further, it suddenly becomes clear why something was ringingly wrong:

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of pediatricians and other healthcare providers who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. Formed in 2002, the College was born out of genuine concern for the welfare of children and for the preservation of their natural families. The College recognizes that contemporary societal forces have placed children at great risk emotionally and physically. In seeking to protect the child, the College will develop sound policy based upon quality research to influence parents and society in the endeavor of childrearing.

Furthermore, the College recognizes the inherent value of both a father and a mother, united in marriage, rearing the child and will advocate for this optimal developmental setting. Realizing that disruption of the family is an unfortunate reality and that every child is unique and valuable, the College pledges to support all children, regardless of their circumstances. The Mission, Value and Vision statements reflect the conviction and concern of the American College of Pediatricians.

Ah - we come to the crux of it. This is a splinter organization formed (possibly) from members of the much older American Academy of Pediatrics organization. A much older, more classical medical college, the AAP was formed in 1930. Since the AAP and the American Psychiatric Association weren't making the appropriately conservative "pro-family statements", a bunch of Pediatricians went off to start their own little conservative organization. (Frankly, if I had a pediatrician that was affiliated with this new group, I'd be looking for another one fast - the last thing I need is a doctor moralizing at me over my family life)

Really, Bishop Henry is an intelligent man. He should know better than to quote sources that are so obviously partisan. It's kind of like using Michael Behe to provide a reasoned critique of Evolution Theory. You know what you're going to get, and it's mostly crap.

When political or religious ideology drives research, the conclusions are guaranteed to be suspect. But, of course, the Religious Reich doesn't worry too much about facts when they can conjure conclusions out of thin air.

The rest of Bishop Henry's column degenerated into the usual "Link Byfield-inspired paranoia" that religious freedoms are being trampled by gay rights activism. While I don't agree with every action that the gay rights activists have taken, the results have yet to constitute something that strikes me as an infringement upon individual religious freedoms.

Bishop Henry is slowly descending into the land of the blatantly political. I see the good Bishop is getting involved with this lovely little fundraiser, being done on behalf of Concerned Christians and it's former head Stephen Boisson. In a way it's rather sad to see Bishop Henry falling in with the kind of nastiness that is the worst side of the so-called "Christian Right Wing" (hmmm - a bird with only a right wing could only turn left...). I'm beginning to suspect that Bishop Henry is apt to make a run for political office in the future - probably with this goon as his campaign mangler. (I've met this man once - and trust me, goon is an apt description)

I'm not asking that the Bishop go and get his PhD. in Psychiatry or anything like that - but I am getting increasingly annoyed with his continued insistance on taking a position on a topic based on such obviously suspect sources. Even a pidgin bit of research can turn up a wide range of material in the topics that the Bishop has been writing on lately. Like the "Intelligent Design" advocates, the Bishop is being wilfully ignorant of positions and evidence that he doesn't like - or that Rome tells him he doesn't like.

This wouldn't irritate me so much but for the fact that the Bishop is a man with a very high public profile, and with rather direct influence over a lot of people's beliefs.

In the department of _NOT_GETTING_IT_

...we have Paul Jackson's latest column.

According to Paul Jackson, we should pity poor Bishop Fred Henry, who now faces an investigation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. After the Bishop's latest column in which he attempted to back-pedal and wound up sticking his other foot in his mouth, I find it a little hard to overly sympathetic.

Says Mr. Jackson:

Here's a major flaw in the Alberta Human Rights Commission process: Anyone can file a complaint and it doesn't cost them a single penny. Yet, to defend himself, Bishop Henry has had to go to one of Canada's top law firms, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, and get them to prepare an enormous brief.

The costs the diocese will incur could have been spent on any of the charitable and community works performed by the church in our city.

So - let me get this straight. Bishop Henry is using his Diocese's monies to defend himself. Hmmm - those funds come from where - oh yes - the people of the congregations, and whatever investments the church has made over the centuries with tithes etc.

So, those monies cannot be used for "good works"? They could, but the good Bishop was idiot enough to demand that the government "coercively legislate to suppress homosexuality" in his first "Pastoral Letter".

Up to that point, I actually have no problem with Bishop Henry's letter. I disagree with his stance, but I have no problem with the content of what he wrote. Up to that point he was engaging in a perfectly legitimate, theologically-based ministration to his flock.

For me, that line of his letter stepped over a line. He moved from theology and legitimate religious discussion into political advocacy. Worse, the wording he used was so broad that it could - and was - easily read by many to suggest that he sanctioned using the law to marginalize a minority group in society.

Of course, Paul Jackson is standing up on his hind legs and yapping away about the evils of this "Kangaroo Court" (as he calls it) who "persecuting" the Good Bishop(tm) for his religious beliefs. They aren't, they are investigating a complaint that arose from what the Bishop wrote in his Pastoral letter (and reiterated many times in his columns for the Calgary Sun).

The complaint is both serious and legitimate. It is serious in that it is the first real test of the boundaries between freedom of religion, as guaranteed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the non-discrimination clauses in section 15. Indeed, the Bishop has truly opened a can of worms with his words.

I don't mind Bishop Fred Henry ranting away from the pulpit - he can pretty much say as he wishes. However, once he starts using his position as a leader of the church to demand that the political system engage in systematic discrimination, he has stepped over the line from legitimate reinforcement of Roman Catholic teaching and has begun to operate as a political lobbyist. As a leader in his church, he is in a position of implicit authority, and further can be accused of using his position to spread hostility against those he chooses to marginalize. (You have to admit, the reading of a Pastoral Letter at Sunday Mass is one heck of a publication and distribution mechanism - beats anything the Aryan Nations have at their disposal!)

As is the case with any leader, the Bishop must be even more sensitive to how his words will be received. I personally think (especially given Bishop Henry's latest diatribe that he knew darn well how his words would be interpreted, and he wrote what he meant to say. Unlike a more skilled political writer, Bishop Henry hasn't yet figured out how to be adequately "ambiguous" so that he can use the "you're just taking it out of context" defense.

Personally, if I were Roman Catholic, I would be seriously upset with the Bishop for putting the Church into the position of wasting its resources defending his political ambitions.

Bishop Henry Speaks - Apparently Stelmach Didn't Listen

So, Bishop Henry has broken his silence on Bill 44.

Apparently, it doesn't go far enough to suit him:

Many of us, especially those who have been charged under the current Alberta human rights legislation, have been advocating for significant legislative reforms, i. e. to incorporate amendments to preclude anti-religious actions.

Why yes, of course - because anyone who would dare challenge Bishop Henry must be anti-religious. The fact that we might just be opposed to religiously inspired bigotry is lost on the Bishop.

Oh yes, and you were never "charged", Bishop. A complaint was filed. As far as I know, the crown (the only body that can lay "charges" in court) never filed any such accusations in the courts.

Bill 44 includes "sexual orientation" as an added protected area. Since there is a tendency to further extend this protection to mean promotion of a lifestyle, many parents requested that this kind of initiative be balanced by explicit confirmation of parental rights regarding the education of their children. A similar provision already exists in the School Act at Section 50 (2).

Uh huh. "Promotion of a lifestyle" - got it. I've heard the meme of the "gay lifestyle" for so many years that it's beyond meaningless. Bishop Henry, and the rest of the religious right wing keep using this phrase, as if to imply it means all sorts of darkness without even bothering to actually pay attention to the mundane reality.

Furthermore, all education is faith-based to some extent. It's time to ask why the opinions of the majority of the citizens in Alberta are being ignored, i. e., "why should the faith of the atheist and agnostic be the only and the governing paradigm in public education?"

Coming from a man whose faith has had its own unique school district arrangements in Alberta since day one, I find this bit of whining particularly ironic. Of course, the good bishop is utterly ignoring not only the existence of the Roman Catholic school boards in this province, but also the plethora of religiously centered Charter Schools and private schools in this province.

It is painfully obvious that the majority of the caucus didn't read Ezra Levant's recently released book, Shakedown. Pity. D+might even be too generous a mark!

Well, we all know how cozy Henry has become with Levant in recent years. Levant's claims in "Shakedown" have been called into question on numerous fronts. It is a sad commentary that the Bishop hasn't apparently even attempted to think through the implications of this bill, and has instead chosen to parrot the dubious wisdom of Levant.

Like Levant, Bishop Henry unhappy because Bill 44 doesn't go as far as he would like.

Bill 44 is deeply flawed, but not for the reasons Bishop Henry raises.

Bishop Henry - Politician

At first glance, Bishop Henry's article in the Sun yesterday appears to be his first attempt at political backpedalling. I've suspected for a while that Bishop Henry has his eye on achieving political power in this country. I thought at first that he had made an actual attempt to back pedal from a major case of 'foot-in-mouth'itis that he has been suffering from lately.

First, Bishop Henry reviews one of the most controversial statements in his January Pastoral letter:

In one of my previous pastoral letters, I wrote: "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."

He then goes on to argue:

The state obviously responds to each of these threats to family life in different ways as it exercises its coercive power.

The government has a solemn obligation to protect, not re-engineer, an institution that is more fundamental to human life than the state.

Okay - so far, so good. He appears to be trying to moderate the intent of his January letter.

Next, we read:

For example, in the case of marriage, federal legislation prohibits people from marrying if they are related linearly or as brother and sister, whether by whole blood, half blood or by adoption.

Specifically, a woman may not marry her grandfather, father, grandson, son or brother. A man may not marry his grandmother, mother, granddaughter, daughter or sister.

The time has come for the government of Canada to use its coercive powers to legislate that a couple being married must be one man and one woman.

This is not a fascist or Hitler-like position, nor even an anti-homosexual stance, but it reflects Christian teaching on the primordial status of marriage and family life.

Ah! Bingo - not only does the Bishop show us that his intentions are no more moderated than they were in January. In fact, he comes around and provides the weakness of his argument as well in that very assumption.

First, regardless of what various people think the preamble to this country's Constitution means, it does not specify a particular notion of God, nor does it sanction Bishop Henry's particular brand of Christian God.

He is correct in raising the issue that the Supreme Court's reference ruling on marriage does not obligate the state to allow same-gender marriage. However, there is a significant body of prior rulings in a variety of areas that demonstrate that the laws of the land are in fact discriminatory to same-gender unions.

These have turned up time and again in areas such as bereavement rights, CCP survivor benefits, "next of kin" issues, criminal law (there are some rules around spouses as witnesses in criminal cases), taxation and a plethora of other situations where the language of the law speaks about spouses and their rights and obligations under law.

As I have argued before, opponents of Same-Gender Marriage object primarily on religious lines, and presuppose either a religious or procreative (or both) role for marriage that is uniquely applicable to a heterosexual relationship. This opposition to the modification of the legal definition of marriage misses the point entirely. There is a clause in the constitution that says that we are all equal before the law.

Under this light, the state has three real choices available to it:

1. Refuse to do anything, and have every piece of legislation that provides specific rights and privileges to a spouse challenged in the courts.

2. Legislate against same-gender marriage explicitly and support it with the "notwithstanding clause". Not only does this continue to subject the country to this debate every 5 years, but it also fails utterly to address the costly prospect of every law on the books being dragged through the courts - at taxpayer expense.

3. Alter the _legal_ definition of marriage and move on.

If you argue that the primary purpose of marriage is procreative, then do you invalidate marriages with no offspring after so many years? Do you prohibit post-menopausal women from remarrying? Of course not.

Looking around, the argument that same-gender unions cannot raise families is simply false logic. There are many same-gender couples raising children. As far as I have been able to determine, the worst that happens to these children is that they might have more open minds as a result.

Even moderated by the language of his interpretation of faith, Bishop Henry continues to demonstrate wilful ignorance of modern knowledge, as well as an amazingly calcified perspective on the legal issues in this discussion.

Further, other writings of the Bishop have railed against the progressive "normalization" of homosexuality in society. Omigosh - if people think its normal, he won't have anyone to hold up as a bastion of immorality. After all, think of all the nasty things that those you don't understand must do! Bishop Henry chooses not to understand a minority group so that he can continue to stand in judgement over them with a clear conscience.

I seem to recall that happening to Jews in Europe for centuries; and before that, the Roman Empire did something very similar to early Christians. Perhaps the good Bishop should stew on that with a side order of law before he goes off writing his next public expose of ignorance.

Set Theory: Which of these is not like the others?

So, according to a letter authored by Bishop Fred Henry, and read to Catholic Parishoners across southern Alberta at the end of Sunday Mass, Catholics are supposed to take up arms (figuratively) against gay marriage.

Okay, Bishop Henry is perfectly entitled to his opinions - just as I am entitled to disagree with him. Personally, I found Henry's letter rather revealing - both in the line of reasoning applied, but also in terms of what it ultimately represents.

The most glaring error is a classical grouping of words which implies a non-existant relationship between the issues:

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family,...

Allow me to dissect this, a piece at a time:

1. Pornography - first and foremost is a choice. A person _chooses_ to partake of smut. Just as a person chooses to smoke. There are lines of reasoning that discuss the harm that pornography can do in the context of a family, but that is another topic for another day. The creation of pornographic material is arguably abusive to the people involved, but again, there are clearly issues of consent and adulthood involved.

2. Prostitution - called the oldest profession in the world. The reality of prostitution is once again one of choices. The "johns" who purchase a prostitute's services are, again, making a choice. The impact of that choice on their families is highly subjective - it can range anything from emotional trauma to STDs. The "john" is the consumer here, and is making a distinct choice. Nothing is compelling them. (I won't go into the plight of the prostitutes themselves - that's another story, and like pornography, filled with many complex tales that I can't do justice to here).

3. Adultery - okay - you got married, so now you're screwing around. Brilliant move. And again, a choice. Your marriage may not be happy, but you made some choices, and something went awry. Is there impact on families - absolutely. Again, a matter of choices.

4. Homosexuality. First and foremost, sexual orientation is _not_ a choice. No credible research has ever turned up even the slightest glimmer of the notion that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, that seems to be immutable, and stubbornly resistant to any attempt to "change" it on the part of the individual. The so-called "ex-gay" movements (such as Exodus International) claim that orientation is mutable. I have yet to see a paper that backs up these claims without resorting to specious argument.

Bishop Henry's points on the issues of pornography, adultery and prostitution are well taken. They all represent poor choices, especially for someone who is a member of a family. However, to lump homosexuality into that same list is to make the false assumption that homosexuals choose their status. Of course, by claiming that homosexuality is a "choice", the Christian Conservative (and others of similar mind) can then argue that it is a matter of self discipline that results in someone acting on those feelings. (Nothing a good dose of "The Fear of God (tm)" can't cure...)

The second assumption on Bishop Henry's part is that homosexuals do not form families. That is simply false. There are plenty of Gay and Lesbian people who are active parents. How they got to be parents is irrelevant to this discussion. The underlying point is that they are parents, and therefore, unquestionably part of a family unit of some kind. It is incorrect - even dangerous - logic indeed to immediately exclude someone from the pool of "family members" based on their sexual orientation. Further, the psychological evidence does not suggest that children of homosexual parents have any increased incidence of psychological problems. (Validly, prostitutes and pornographers also have families - but that isn't key to my point here)

Not only has the good bishop mangled matters of personal choice (and actions that can do serious harm to the participants) with matters that are not of personal choice, he has further muddied the waters by claiming that homosexuals who are parents are not in fact participating in the concept of family.

The Bishop's argument, when put before a figurative mirror is rather interesting. Bishop Henry further argues:

The principal objective in seeking same-sex “marriage”is not really even about equality rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.

So, putting this in front of the "mirror", and staring at it, it becomes painfully clear that the Bishop is not in fact worried about legal same-sex marriage as such, but rather he is worried that his "right" to discriminate against people for their sexual and romantic orientation might be eroded further. In other words, the Church - with it's long history of sodomy and pedophilia (has anyone else forgotten about the "Pedophile Priests" a few years ago, or the various orphanage and residential school scandals????) wishes to continue its right to marginalize people at their moral whim.

Just as the Church spent most of its time in the middle ages hunting "witches" - marginalizing old women, and those who were visibly weak in society, it has turned its sights on homosexuals, demonizing them by falsely associating them with pornography, adultery and other social issues. It is sad to see Bishop Henry making such foolish associations in his arguments. He is an intelligent man capable of a great deal of insight and compassion. I remain disappointed at his obdurate inflexibility to see beyond his own dearly held right to persecute people on this matter.

In Canada, we have a Charter of Rights embedded in our Constitution that makes the notion of equality very, very clear. Just as I will support the Church's right to speak it's mind on these matters - I would never advocate taking away Bishop Henry's voice, I must also stand in opposition to what that voice represents in this matter. So far, the arguments have all boiled down to one thing - the Church wants to keep it's right to continue marginalizing people in society.

If the notion of same-sex marriage is so intractable to the Churches, then I suggest that they propose a legal construct that would permit a same-sex couple the same rights and protections under law that a married couple has. The word marriage is sprinkled throughout our body of laws in this land, and the result is that in many circumstances, life partners of people are shut out from protections that would be provided to any heterosexual spouse simply on the basis of their relative gender to their partner's. (This affects taxes, pensions, insurance coverage, medical treatment (although doctors have come a huge distance in recent years))

The Distinction Between Law and Morality

Since it seems to be beyond Bishop Henry to draw a distinction between law and moral equivalence, I'll try to spell it out for him.

Once again, Bishop Henry draws out a false slippery slope argument, little different to his assorted, and irrational tirades about SGM:

McLachlin writes that indecency may be conduct that i) interferes with a person's autonomy or liberty, ii) pre-disposes others to anti-social behaviour or iii) causes physical or psychological harm.

Further, the harm must be "of a degree incompatible with the proper functioning of society."

There are a number of problems with the reasoning of the justices.

If they thought it was difficult to define indecency, just wait until they have to struggle with defining "harm" within their parameters.

This new standard will be even more problematic.

Of course, the good Bishop is attempting to draw an equivalency between the ambiguous notion of indecency and the notion of harm. What the Bishop (having clearly not fully understood the case history upon which the ruling is based upon) has missed is that the courts have a long history of assessing and understanding the legal notion of harm. It is a notion that has a solid rooting in law and the practice of law.

Just to play in the Bishop's own little playground for a moment or two, it's pretty darned easy to apply a measurement of harm. If Robert Pickton is convicted, it will be indisputable that his actions harmed his victims. Similarly, there is little doubt that pedophile priests harm their victims, or that a pimp's enterprise is harmful to the prostitutes they attempt to control.

By comparison, what goes on between consenting adults is another thing altogether. While something may be perfectly legal, that doesn't make it moral or ethical. A case in point would be the established behaviour of various members of the Chretien-era PMO during the "Sponsorship Program". While neither moral or ethical, their actions were not clearly illegal either.

Continuing along his argument of an increasingly slippery slope, Bishop Henry skewers himself on his own logic:

The saddest part of the justices' decision is their misunderstanding of human nature and human sexuality.

Passion will continue to rage within the human breast, and reason and religious conviction will try to get the upper hand until the end of time.

But once unlimited opportunity for sex is available, the contest becomes unequal.

The last barrier to fall is social sanction.

The moment society stops saying that sex outside marriage (one's own marriage) is sin, injustice, or reprehensible conduct, but says instead that sex of any kind is available to everyone in the normal course of things regardless of state or circumstance, then sex outside marriage will "happen" more and more.

First of all, the courts aren't in the business of measuring human nature and sexuality. At most, they may consult from time to time with mental health professionals to understand the behaviour of someone appearing before them.

Then, Bishop Henry comes out and plays his cards as if he holds some kind of trump, asserting that sex outside of marriage warrants proscription. Once again, we are confronted by a member of the Catholic Priesthood trying to dictate to the masses what the rules around their sexuality should be. Coming from someone who is forbidden by their own vows not to be a participant in the sexual aspects of society, it seems a trifle unreasonable to dictate to the rest of society how we should conduct ourselves.

Legal sanction issues aside, what Bishop Henry has completely, and utterly misunderstood is that the Justices of the Supreme Court made no moral declaration about the behaviour in those swinger's clubs. They simply ruled on the application of the sections of the criminal code that were applied and determined that the measurements available did not suggest a criminal behaviour. I don't think this is exactly complicated to understand. Society is still free to decide that the activity itself is undesirable and to broadcast its disapproval.

I submit that if the Bishop wishes to demonstrate the supposed dangers of the behaviour that he is so worried about, it is time for him to engage in some real study of the subject. The kind of dispassionate study of a population that routinely undertaken by researchers in sociology and psychology. If the empirical results show the kind of "damage" that Bishop Henry claims, then there is a measure upon which the assertion of harm can be based. However, if the empirical results show otherwise, the good Bishop can shut up about the subject, and reserve his moralizing for the congregations that fall under his purview.

Random Irrationality

It appears that the Pope is still considering how to punish Paul Martin for having the audacity to permit gays to get married in Canada.

In the referenced article, the author suggests stripping the Roman Catholic Church of its tax exempt status. Needless to say that has spawned a minor flurry of inane idiocy among religious conservatives. A random troll through the blogosphere turns up the following reactions:

1. They're promoting hatred against Roman Catholics
2. Freedom of Religion for anyone who isn't a Christian
3. The Church is doing the State a favour by accepting tax-exempt status

Needless to say, these are decidedly nutty reactions at best.

1. They're promoting hatred against Roman Catholics

This one is straight out of left field - I have no idea what kind of logic derives that from the notion of stripping a church's tax-exempt status. If a church becomes a political lobby, then they should have to obey the same rules as every other political lobby group - period. (And living in Calgary, where I have front-row seats to watch Bishop Fred Henry's ham-handed attempts to lobby the government this way and that, I think there's possibly some merit to stripping _his_ diocese of its tax-exempt status...)

2. Freedom of Religion is only applied to those who aren't a Christian

Here's an old saw. It really boils down to "freedom of religion - as long as its my religion". Basically the twits that argue this way are all upset because they aren't succeeding in imposing their divinely inspired will upon the rest of us. Like the term "activist judge", it basically means that something isn't going "their way", so they are going go sulk about the unfairness of the system. (As opposed to actually producing intelligible arguments as to why things should go their way)

3. The Church is doing the State a favour by accepting tax-exempt status

I really had to scratch my head when I ran into this bit of irrational reasoning. Basically, the argument goes something like this: "Because the Church is tax-exempt, it is apart from the regular political constituency. Therefore, the Church doesn't interfere directly in the affairs of state. If it is a tax paying institution, then it suddenly demands more rights and time from our politicians".

The obvious reply to that is - "Bishop Fred Henry". The man's a one-man-lobby group if I've ever seen it. Worse, he uses his position as a member of the clergy to fund his activities, and give him a platform from which to spew his particular view of things.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with Bishop Henry (or any other cleric) expressing his opinions. However, that doesn't mean I can't object to his attempts (however clumsy) to use church resources to promulgate those opinions, and in particular to influence our politicians. I would remind readers that Bishop Henry has variously threatened Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Joe Clark with excommunication, damnation or whatever when the public policy is at odds with his unique form of dogma.

If that isn't engaging in political lobby, I don't know what is. The worst part of it is that Bishop Henry - and other clergy - do so in their capacity as clergy, not as private citizens. (This would be equivalent to me writing to my MP as my Employer's Representative - as opposed to writing as a private citizen "on behalf of my employer's interests".)

Realisitically, I'm not actually in favour of stripping Churches of their charitable status "carte-blanche" - there are far too many Churches that do legitimately "good works" in the community, and it would seem silly to punish them for the idiocy of politically-oriented clergy. However, recent lobby activity undertaken by some churches leads me to suggest that these bodies may have to be held to closer scrutiny - and taxed on those funds/resources that are used for political lobby/engagement. (Little different than the small business owner that keeps an office in the house - they can declare a portion of the mortgage and expenses for the house as being "business expenses", but not the whole enchilada)

The world has changed, and so has Canada. The days of the Churches being "unique focal points" in our lives are long gone, and with senior clergy like Bishop Henry becoming more politically active, it is time for our system of taxation and law to recognize that reality.

The Yawning Chasm Opens...

... and spews forth Bishop Henry...

Stupidity, Ignorance and Bigotry - all three in one package - how efficient. Over here we have an interview with the erstwhile Bishop by the Vatican's own news agency.

The beginning of the interview is fine, until it turns to the Bishop's favourite hobby horse - gay marriage. Okay, the Bishop is perfectly entitled to disagree with it, nobody is asking him to endorse a legal same-gender marriage. (Or - if they are, the persons doing so are terminally overoptimistic)

Q: In the wake of the same-sex marriage law, do you foresee a danger of more discrimination against the Church and Catholic organizations?

Bishop Henry: Absolutely! The attempt will be made to continue the process of privatizing and/or marginalizing religion.

Er - I don't quite know what he means by "privatizing" or "marginalizing" religion. As far as I can tell, religion enjoys a uniquely privileged place in our society - both socially and in the context of the government recognition of that role. We grant churches a unique tax free status - even when they try to morph themselves into political lobby groups. Since the government asserts no ownership over churches, they are already private organizations - with an amazing amount of freedom that other private organizations do not enjoy.

It will be argued that the Charter of Rights and the new law regarding same-sex marriages compel public schools to teach their students the moral equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual relations and marriages.

Furthermore, to the extent that these concepts are explored in health and physical education classes, the exploration must be equivalent. The argument will be that any other approach would be discriminatory and contrary to the equality rights under s.15(1) of the Charter and the numerous court cases that have led to the passage of Bill C-38.

The impact of the social re-engineering is bound to filter down to school classrooms.

Bishop Henry's paranoid reading of the law misses the point entirely, and will no doubt continue to miss the point. If there is anything to what he is saying, it would turn up in the issue of whether or not the schools are teaching a curriculum that is fostering hostility towards gay couples.

Among other things, the Bishop is once again confusing moral issues with legal and ethical issues. I respect his right to believe that same gender marriages are morally wrong - It's a shame that the Bishop insists upon forcing his moral view upon the rest of Canadian society.

Then, later in the interview, the Bishop goes on to say:

Within the Catholic community we have to do even more to strengthen our marriage preparation and marriage enrichment courses, our accompaniment of the separated and divorced and the bereaved who have lost spouses, and our celebration of marriage and the beauty of human sexuality in God's plan. Many of us are committed to working for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others.

Dear Bishop - if human sexuality is truly beautiful, and it's part of God's Plan(tm), would you please explain to me what your problem is with sexual minorities? Does it not occur to you that your very theological position that God Created All(tm) also implies that God Created Those Minorities? No? - I thought not - that might require you to actually open your eyes and recognize the reality of the world around you. (Not something that Pope Ratz is going let you do anytime soon)

Then the exchange moves to politics:

Bishop Henry: Catholic politicians have a duty to be morally coherent. They cannot live as spiritual schizophrenics.

In undertaking any public initiative, it is morally incoherent to leave out completely one's own fundamental convictions, whether for noble or pragmatic reasons. The truth regarding the human person and obligations to uphold this truth do not change when a politician leaves the security of the home and ventures into the secular or political sphere. In all that he or she does, the Catholic politician must work to proclaim and put into action the truth about man and the world.

All Catholic politicians would do well to imitate the example of St. Thomas More, who by his life and death taught that man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality. In him, there was no sign of a split between faith and culture, between timeless principles and daily life, but rather a convergence of political commitment.

While serving all, More knew well how to serve his king, that is the state, but above all wanted to serve God: "The king's good servant, but God's first."

When a politician acts in a manner that is scandalous to the faithful, harmful to society, and gravely immoral, I believe that in keeping with Canon 223, "Ecclesiastical authority is entitled to regulate, in view of the common good, the exercise of rights which are proper to Christ's faithful."

Although not the first course of action, this includes the right to holy Communion. For as Canon 915 states: "Those [...] who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion."

In the world of politics, the Bishop has once again missed the boat. A brief review of Section 2 of the Charter should be mandatory reading for him every night before he goes to bed - along with an essay on how the freedoms of conscience and religion also place our politicians in the position of legislating not merely on the basis of their beliefs, but sometimes on the basis of - oddly - law that may well run at odds to specific dogmas.

While Thomas More may have disagreed with the King, and paid the price for it, this is not the era of King Henry VIII. Our laws today are a compact between all citizens and the government. That means our politicians have to act not merely to protect the expressed interests of the masses of the majority, but also those of minority groups.

Second, freedoms of conscience and religion also mean that if the government is to legislate morality, the courts are then obliged to examine that legislation on the grounds of whether it is causing harm to plaintiff groups. If the Bishop wishes to express that SGM causes some kind of harm (goodness knows what that might be), then go for it. Otherwise, he is doing little more than attempting to impose his own religious dogma upon those who may or may not follow his faith traditions.

Sadly, while the Bishop continues to view marriage as a procreative construct, he fails utterly to understand that it's very recognition in law takes it into a very different context from the scriptural and moral viewpoint that he is pushing. Of course, the Bishop is a member of the clergy, and not a lawyer so perhaps the distinction escapes him.

An aside - if Marriage is primarily procreative in nature, as the R.C. church continually seems to argue, then marriages become invalid when one of the partners becomes infertile. More to the point, why don't I hear them howling blue murder about procedures like vasectomy, tubal ligation and hysterectomy? (Yet the church seems to be incredibly worried about condoms?) Of course, the church couldn't possibly be applying a relativistic spin on things, could they? - especially in light of Pope Ratz's condemnation of "relativism"...

Misconceptions and Ignorance - The Underpinnings of Intolerance

Two of the more vocal opponents of same-gender-marriage (SGM) have taken one last swing at the topic just before the last debates and voting on bill C-38 take place. Of whom do I speak? No, not Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney or Rob Anders. I speak of the Sun Newspapers' Bishop Fred Henry, and Ted Byfield.

I'll give Bishop Henry a modicum of credit - he's at least attempting to enumerate the nature of the "harm" that he believes that SGM will do to society. In a nutshell, his argument boils down to the notion that children's rights to a stable, identifiable family will be violated. Of course, the Bishop's reasoning is predicated, as it has always been on the "potential" to have children. In today's diverse world, there are a plethora of ways that a couple may come to have children - whether it is a result of sexual intercourse, adoption or surrogate parents. I won't go into the number of Same Gender couples I know of where one member or the other has offspring as a result of some past relationship.

The tragedy of that past relationship isn't that it failed, but rather that societial pressures are often the reason the homosexual person entered into it in the first place.

Of course, Bishop Henry goes on to argue

"Given that stable and exclusive homosexual coupling is the exception rather than the norm, to connect homosexual coupling with children's welfare or with a stable environment for children is nothing if not dishonest."

I find it sad that the Bishop's own sense of intellectual honesty doesn't allow him to recognize the fact that heterosexual couples can be just as unstable as any other. Affairs happen all the time; abusive couples happen; spouses walk out on their partners for a myriad of reasons. When the statistics show that nearly 50% of all marriages end before the vows of "'til death do us part" expire, it's damnably difficult to argue that heterosexual couples are inherently stable. (and goodness knows, I've seen enough "stable" marriages that were so screwed up that any offspring were going to be seriously troubled as adults - and they have been!)

Sadly, the Bishop goes on to make the following statements:

Even if we concede that the social-science evidence is sometimes ambiguous, we know that two parents are better for children than one.

Families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers. Biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones.

I'd love to know where he gets his "facts" from. So far, he's making a lot of very bold assertions, but he has yet to put forth any kind of credible evidence to reinforce them. (Whether there is any clear evidence is debatable - the number of homosexuals raising children is a small fraction of a small population. Making any kind of meaningful population study would be extremely difficult. The evidence I have been able to track down is mostly anecdotal in nature, but suggests that the outcomes for children raised by same-gender couples are little different than those of heterosexual couples.

Of course, while Bishop Henry at least attempts to be reasoned - if sadly underinformed - Ted Byfield continues to show the knuckle-dragging narrow-mindedness of someone whose mind has long ago closed to any new information.

First, he dredges up the saw used repeatedly about how the bill constrains religious freedoms:

Nothing in it will interfere with freedom of speech, they say, or with the rights of churches to refuse to marry gays, or the rights of Christian schools to teach the biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality, or the right of churches to read passages from Scripture condemning homosexual activity.

Yes Ted, allowing the gay couple down the street to be legally recognized as a married couple really affects your religion. Uh-huh. I agree that there will no doubt be a number of challenges along these lines that Churches will encounter in the coming years. However, given the fact that the Roman Catholic Church's stance on ordination of women has been left alone by the courts of the land, I would tend to suspect that other teachings of churches would go similarly unchallenged. Of course, there might be some question of the boundaries. Is it legitimate for the clergy to exhort their congregations to "go roll a queer"? Or might that constitute active promotion of hatred, violence and persecution?

In other words, it is no longer a court at all. It is now an unelected legislature, its members specifically chosen to create laws fulfilling an ideological agenda that could not possibly gain the approval of an elected Parliament.

WTF? Where did this bit of illogic come from. Oh waitasec - it's the "Judicial Activism" bogeyman. Congratulations Ted, you've demonstrated yet again that your ability to read something as relatively simple as the Charter of Rights is nonexistant. Go read the document, and think on it for a while. (If necessary, try a simpler read - like "See spot run", first) You might just figure out that the Supreme Court has been doing precisely what they are mandated to do - interpret the laws of the land. I have seen rulings I disagree with, but I can usually figure out the basis from which they are derived - which is better than I can do with your reasoning.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has been twice cited in complaints registered with the Alberta Human Rights Commission for daring to inform the faithful of the church's position on homosexual practices. If the case proceeds, it will undoubtedly wind up in the Supreme Court where the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

The cases involving Bishop Henry's so-called Pastoral Letters (which he has used every other means available to him to broadcast outside of the church) have yet to be considered. You do both the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal and the court system of this nation a disservice by presupposing what the findings will be.

Soon any church caught teaching Christian sexual morality, or urging its members to oppose sodomy-endorsing politicians, will be accused of getting into politics and its tax exemption status will be challenged.

Ah - now the truth comes out. As usual, the problem is the ill-informed notion that homosexual males are out to sodomize anything that moves. A gay man I met once said "I just want to shake your hand, not fuck you". Get real Ted - you can't tell me that your own marriage is based entirely on your sexual relationship with your wife. (Or, if it is, I'm amazed that you're still married - few women I can think of spend their lives focusing on sex)

Meanwhile, lesbian couples will have been allowed to adopt children. Would it not be vicious discrimination to deny them such a right? It certainly would, the court will rule.

And since gay women have that right, surely gay men should be allowed to adopt little boys. How can the court say no?

Uh-huh. Once again, Ted is completely, and irrationally focused on the sexual act. My God, last time I saw someone so obsessed with sex, it was when someone tried to pick me up in the Devonian Gardens back when I was in High School (at least the poor sod had the grace to be as embaressed as I was). Of course, Ted can't possibly leave out a chance to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. (We won't go into the infamous Pedophile Priests, and the complicity of the Church organizations in covering up their activities, will we?)

Yes, Ted. Allowing gays to marry will cause the earth to stop spinning and the sun to stop shining.

If Bill C-38 does anything, it puts one more nail in the coffin of dinosaurs whose sole purpose in life seems to be finding an excuse to persecute someone for being honest with themselves about who they are and who they love. This was a coffin that started being built when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta - it has already taken a millenium to get to this point - it will take millenia yet to finish the work begun a thousand years ago.

As long as the orphan twins of Misconception and Ignorance continue to roam this planet, there will always be people whose right to full participation in the world need to be protected and fought for.

Bishop Henry ... It's Been A While

For those who don't live in Calgary in the fair province of Alberta, you may not have heard the uproar over a doctor refusing to prescribe birth control pills to patients.  Unsurprisingly, a lot of people are upset by this.  

Equally unsurprising is Bishop Fred Henry's contribution to the discussion, published as a "Letter to the Editor" in today's Calgary Herald.

Re: "Doctors' ability to say no must be limited," Naomi Lakritz, Opinion, July 2. Physicians will sometimes prescribe the pill to treat problems like heavy menstrual bleeding, painful periods, pre-menstrual syndrome, endometriosis or severe acne. In these cases, the pill is used not as a contraceptive, but as a therapy for a medical condition. 

This can be morally permissible under the principle of double effect, which allows for the treatment of a serious medical problem (good effect) while tolerating its unintended consequences, when other less harmful treatments are not available. In this case, the unintended consequences would be the impeding of fertility and the pill's potential health risks and side-effects (evil effect). 

Some medical professionals insist that the pill, taken purely to avoid pregnancy, is "health care." It is not health care, but a lifestyle decision. This lifestyle decision is frequently made in the midst of a cultural backdrop that sanctions the misguided view that "health" means we have the right to practise consensual indiscriminate sex without consequences. 

The pill, when chosen strictly for these contraceptive purposes, fails the test of being health care because it does not heal or restore any broken system. It breaks a smoothly working system - the reproductive system - by disrupting the delicate balance of hormonal cycles regulating a woman's reproductive wellbeing and fecundity. 

When taken for lifestyle purposes, the pill is quite the opposite of health care - being detrimental to women's health - in light of its frequent side-effects of weight gain, headaches and depression, as well as its heightened and well-documented risk of thrombotic stroke, heart attack and breast cancer. 

We need more information from the professionals as to how the pill works. Does it prevent fertilization or is it an abortifacient? Or both? 

Bishop Fred Henry 

Calgary
Fred Henry is bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary.

It comes as no surprise that the local Catholic Bishop would be objecting to the idea of contraception.  Last I checked, the official position of the Catholic Church was still that contraception is unacceptable - including condoms.  So, no big surprises there.

However, I take considerable exception to several aspects of the Bishop's arguments.

First, he claims that the contraceptive action of the pill is an "evil effect".  For those who choose to believe what the Bishop preaches, that's just fine.  Go ahead and believe that there is an "evil" associated with the pill.  The issue is not that the medication has effects on the body - that is both well documented and well understood.  To call them "evil" is something of a reach ... but we'll come back to this in a moment or two.

He then moves on to the old saw about how sex must have consequences.  Again, if you bought into the old guilt trip routine that the Catholic Church has been teaching about sex for the last several centuries, that's one thing.  On the other hand, some people actually like sex for its own sake.  I'm certain the Bishop will find this terribly appalling - we aren't supposed to actually enjoy it.  Especially not women.

This is, of course, complete nonsense.  Human beings have used sex as a means of pleasure, social bonding and goodness knows what else for far longer than the Catholic Church has existed.  For at least that long, men have been trying to regulate women's sexuality ... unsuccessfully for the most part.  I for one don't exactly think terribly highly of a bunch of supposedly celibate males trying to dictate how we should experience sex.

Accordingly, because it is "a lifestyle choice", Bishop Henry figures that the Pill isn't "medical care". Is the pill "medical care"?  That's a matter of perspective.  In some countries, it's an over-the-counter medication - walk in and ask for it and off you go.  In Canada, we still require a doctor's prescription. I suppose from the perspective of monitoring the patient for possible side effects and consequences, a visit to a doctor for a prescription isn't a bad idea.  In claiming that it is a "lifestyle choice" and therefore not "care", the Bishop is overlooking the obligation of the physician to ensure that the patient is in fact not experiencing serious side effects from the medication.

Perhaps most annoying about the Bishop's argument is his attempt to muddy the waters further by questioning whether the pill is "contraceptive" or "abortifacient".  This latter claim is relatively recent, and has been used to argue that certain medications are in fact essentially "chemical abortions" and therefore should be suppressed as violently as abortion itself.  It is part of the wedge politics approach to regulating women's sexuality.

Frankly, I don't think it matters which way (or both) that the Pill works.  The decision isn't the Bishop's to make, nor is it the Church's.  Women have a right to administer their bodies as they see fit, and manage their lives as they see fit.  (and that may just include enjoying sex now and then too)

As the old joke goes:  If the Bishop no playa da game, he no make da rules

Bishop Henry Returns ...

It has been quite some time since I felt a need to address something that Calgary's Bishop Fred Henry has written.  Then I happened to wander past the Calgary Diocese website and read his latest "pastoral letter" (or whatever his columns on the website are officially known as).  The title is benign enough:  "Heal the Wounds, So Many Wounds ..." 

Unfortunately, what the reader is then subjected to is possibly the most offensive screed the Bishop has written in several years.

It starts off with one of the Bishop's standard attacks on "liberalism", and then goes after Transgender people:

The cutting edge of liberal culture is the attempt to label the two created human sexes, male and female, as arbitrary and unjust impositions on humanity. This involves an attempt to separate sex from gender, that is, the biological fact (human anatomy and chromosomal cellular structure) of the two human sexes from their social and cultural expressions, which they term "gender," and which is seen as totally socially constructed and in no way grounded in nature. 

Then, using such a phenomenon as hormonal treatment and "sex-change operations," they begin to deny the very stability and reality of the two created sexes. After that, they claim that whether or not one undergoes such an operation, one's subjective feeling about what sex/gender one is trumps the physical facts of one's body. 

- See more at: http://calgarydiocese.ca/messages-from-the-bishop/1362-heal-the-wounds-heal-the-wounds-so-many-wounds.html#sthash.jjOtfvFp.dpuf

Lovely, Bishop Henry.  I see that once again you have returned to your old haunts - by attacking that which you refuse to even attempt to understand.  Are you really going to argue that chromosomes define gender?  Or that physical anatomy defines gender?  Still?

I'm going to come back to this topic in a minute, because there are a couple of other gems in the Bishop's screed that I think warrant bringing to your attention.

The soul and the body are in a master/slave relationship, the former legitimately dominating and re-making the latter. For Biblical people, the body can never be construed as a prison for the soul, nor as an object for the soul's manipulation. Moreover, the mind or will is not the "true self" standing over and against the body; rather, the body, with its distinctive form, intelligibility, and finality, is an essential constituent of the true self. 

Let me get this straight - the Bishop wishes to argue that the distinction between gender and sex that there is actual evidence for, is overruled by the mythology of a soul (which may or may not exist - I haven't seen any evidence which objectively substantiates such a claim), and somehow the "soul and body are intertwined", and therefore couldn't possibly be at odds with each other?  Sure ...

Tolerance is a working principle that enables us to live in peace with each other and their ideas. Most of the time it is a good thing. But it is not an end in itself, and to tolerate or excuse a grave evil in society is itself a grave evil. 

Oh, even better.  He doesn't quite go as far as saying it, but essentially the Bishop is saying that transgender people are a "grave evil".   Wow - that's quite a claim, Bishop.  Just what is the evil that transgender people are perpetrating?

Let's come back to the Bishop's complaint that gender and sex are inextricably linked with each other for a moment.  We already know plenty of situations where chromosomes and anatomy don't fully align, such as a woman with a 46 XY karyotype, or perhaps he'd prefer to review Swaab's 2009 paper about brain differentiation during gestation.  Either way, the Bishop's argument that chromosomes or genitalia tell the "whole story" is complete nonsense.

As for gender roles, we know those are in large part social constructs.  The impact of messages in mass media about how boys should behave or what girls should do are pervasive, as are the messages we live with in our social circles.  The effect of these in socialization is neither trivial nor easily ignored.  Yet, we have a lot of transgender people who manage to successfully transition and blend into their new social roles.  If the two were inextricably linked as the Bishop claims, this would seem to be a nearly impossible task, and yet it happens.

As for the Bishop's implicit declaration that transgender people are some kind of "grave evil", I would suggest to the Bishop that he needs to substantiate just what this grave evil might be.  What I see are a lot of people bravely living their lives as honestly as possible.  If the Bishop thinks that this is "deceptive" and "evil", perhaps the Bishop needs to be reminded of the old saw about "walking a mile in another person's shoes".   There are a good many people in the Transgender community as a whole who might justifiably take umbrage at the Bishop's attempt to invalidate their reality and lived experiences.