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.
7 comments:
Sheesh! Talk about a prolific authour! Every time I turn around you have published a brand new novel! Must mark off a few hours to read...
Let me get this straight. You think Catholics are allowed to talk to themselves, but they dare not go public with their policy preferences? You want to keep them "in the closet"? Is this not the same kind of discrimination that you see Henry advocating? If you're willing to use the state's coercive power to keep one group's views private, then what's to stop the state from doing the same to another group or individual, like yourself?
I think you need to think through the consequences of your advocacy a little more carefully.
No, I am not advocating that Catholics - or members of any other faith - keep their policy opinions in the closet.
What I am saying is that the complaint before the human rights commission bears a certain legitimacy, and it is worth considering whether or not Bishop Henry stepped beyond legitimate religious ministry in his words and the distribution thereof. (Remember, none of us is free to promote and spread discrimination against others - including Church officials)
I am not advocating new coercive measures. I am asking that the Bishop respect the same laws that I am bound to as a citizen of this country.
Sadly, the good Bishop seems to believe that he is above reproach by virtue of his position as Bishop. (Last I checked, being ordained doesn't make him infallible, nor above challenge)
Since the guarantees in two sections of the charter are ultimately what is being weighted off here, this is a very important, and interesting case.
If the tribunal decision comes out on the Bishop's side, I will respect that. (I will continue to disagree with the Bishop's position, but I will respect his right to use the means and wording he has chosen to use)
There is a discussion about the notion of keeping Church and State separate - but that's another issue for another day.
*Freedom of religion also means freedom _from_ religion*
One other point - I don't think Bishop Henry would have created quite such an issue had he said something along the lines of "As Catholics, we should urge the government to ..."
Instead, what he did state was that the Government Should ...
In doing so he moved from a call to action on the part of his congregation to a command to the government. A subtle, but important distinction, and part of what makes his pastoral letter such a topic of debate.
Nonsense. You want him before the Human Rights tribunal, which by definition uses the coercive power of the law to shut him down. Moreover, you want the coercive power of the state to define his religious ministry, instead of the liberal arrangement where members of civil society define their own associational missions, ministries, etc., within a framework of law. You don't advocate telling people to ignore Henry, to picket his office, or to conduct other *political* activities to counter his arguments.
You want him in jail, because that's the state's coercive power that the HRC wields - if it decides to fine Henry who will then refuse to pay, who'll then go to jail.
And this is for someone who can draw upon diocesian funds to pay for legal counsel. I'd hate to see how viciously you'd prosecute someone without such funds.
I would protest someone demanding legislation to suppress the Bishop's right to his religious beliefs just as strenuously. Discrimination and bigotry are the ugly side of humanity.
Read what I've written carefully, and you will find that I'm absolutely clear and consistent that I do not want the Bishop "shut up".
I _DO_ believe that there is a question to be addressed. I _DO_ believe it is important. What are the boundaries between freedom of belief and conscience, and the right to be free from discrimination?
Is this not an important discussion? Should we not be asking it?
Post a Comment