Bishops and Reality

Seldom do Alberta's Bishops allow reality to interfere with their preconceived ideas.  In fact, where Calgary's Bishop Henry is concerned, the idea of reality seems to exist in another dimension entirely where LGBT rights are concerned.  In his latest tirade, carrying the grandiose title "TOTALITARIANISM IN ALBERTA IV", is so profoundly riddle with ignorance, hyperbole and outright paranoid thoughts that it deserves a more detailed tearing down.  

Despite the differing signage, ranging from “Flush Bill 10” to “Everyone Can Pee,” the issues are not just about bathrooms, plumbing and urination, parental rights, safety of children, how people feel, GSAs and an imperfect Bill 10. What is at stake is the very order of creation. (emphasis added)

Apparently, protecting LGBT youth in Alberta schools is now such a profound threat to the Bishop that it now represents an existential threat to the world itself!  Wow ... I had no idea that LGBT, and in particular Trans, kids were so powerful.

Mr. Eggen's guiding principle for best practices is: “self-identification is the sole measure of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” This foundational statement is simply assumed to be true and no evidence is offered to substantiate the claim.

Such subjectivity is ever expansive and morally problematic. LGBT has now swelled to LGBTTQQIAAP2S. ... The newest addition is the “2S” which denotes being two-spirited, a term used for one who does not fit into the male/female binary. Some have even added “BDSM” for those into bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism.

Oh yes, the dreaded "slippery slope" argument.  Of course recognizing that human sexuality and expression is far more diverse than the simple male/female missionary model that the Bishop seems so hung up on would collapse - a reality that most of us have figured out the hard way.

However, facts, not ideology, determine reality. On April 6, 2016, the American College of Pediatricians, representing more than a hundred pediatricians, issued an important statement concerning gender ideology ... The College’s statement meshes perfectly with biblical and theological truths.

 Let's look at this for a moment.  "Biblical and theological truths" is a key phrase in here.  Let me be abundantly clear about something.  In spite of the Bishop's protestations, we are not talking about biblical or theological notions of truth here.  Bill 10 and the guidelines that came down earlier this year are not about those issues at all - they are about protecting children and creating a safe environment for them.  For all that the Bishop may wish to blather on about "biblical truth", the fact is that he is miles offside here, because there is clear evidence that providing safe, secure environments that acknowledge the realities of LGBT youth provide better outcomes for their education.  (There's a lot more like this)  From the pulpit, the Bishop is free to spout whatever he wishes, but when it comes to objective realities, the facts contradict everything he is saying.

Pope Francis, “the who am I to judge” Pope, has not minced his words: “the gender ideology is demonic.” He includes gender theory among the fundamental dangers of our era, with the same threatening potential as nuclear weapons and gene manipulation and describes it as an attitude with which man creates a new sin that is directed against God the Creator.

I love this.  The political right wing has started to use the language of "gender ideology" in its attacks on gender minorities.  Seriously?  Lovely attempt at trying to obfuscate the discussion by inventing terminology.  Rather than admitting that they are objecting to equality rights for transgender people (which means you have to admit that you are advocating for discriminatory practices), the Bishop borrows a meaningless piece of verbiage and uses it hoping that we won't notice the sleight of hand.

“Beyond the understandable difficulties which individuals may experience, the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation… Sex education should help young people to accept their own bodies and to avoid the pretension to cancel out sexual differences because one no longer know how to deal with it.”

Really?  I wonder if either the Bishop or the Pope realize that most transgender people experience  significant levels of dysphoria from the outset?  That for some, the only option for a viable life is to transition?  Many spend years trying desperately to "accept" the lot that they have been given, only to find that they are perpetually unable to do so.  It isn't merely "accepting their bodies", most have struggled for years to achieve that, and failed.

Bishop Henry might want to actually get to know the realities that transgender people face, the struggles of their lives and how his hostility to them affects their lives before making grandiose pronouncements about how they should be "treated" in his judgment.  

Ethics Is Not A Zero Sum Game

With Alberta's Catholic Bishops having stuck their oar into the secular sphere of public services several times in recent months, making hardline declarations about what their faith supports and does not support.  

Let me be clear, I don't really care if the Catholic Church wants to declare that being LGBT is some kind of mortal sin, or that Physician Assisted Death (PAD) is "morally corrupt".  Those are both moral positions within the context of their faith that the Church is perfectly entitled to ask its membership to abide by.  I may stridently disagree with the rationale they use, but that's another matter.  That isn't the topic I want to discuss today.

In both the matter of school safety for LGBT students and the PAD issue, the Bishops are making this an "all-or-nothing" proposition.  Essentially, they are placing their Church's moral dictates at the top of some imagined hierarchy of rights.  This is neither reasonable or appropriate.

The problem here is the idea that there is some kind of moral absolute involved which trumps everything.  This is far from being a reasonable approach to ethical issues.  The Canadian Medical Association's policy statement on Physician Assisted Death reflects the actual complexities involved. It reflects the fact that a physician must consider far more than their "deeply held faith" (or whatever phrase you want to throw at it).

1. "Consider first the well-being of the patient." This means that the care of patients, in this case those who are terminally ill or who face an indefinite life span of suffering or meaninglessness, must be physicians' first consideration.
2. "Provide for appropriate care for your patient, even when cure is no longer possible, including physical comfort and spiritual and psychosocial support."
3. "Provide your patients with the information they need to make informed decisions about their medical care, and answer their questions to the best of your ability."
4. "Respect the right of a competent patient to accept or reject any medical care recommended."
5. "Ascertain wherever possible and recognize your patient's wishes about the initiation, continuation or cessation of life-sustaining treatment."
6. "Recognize the profession's responsibility to society in matters relating to
. . . legislation affecting the health or well- being of the community . . ."
7. "Inform your patient when your personal values would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants."

Consider these ethics statements for a moment.  They don't say "your faith trumps the patient", nor do they say that a physician must participate directly in a process that they disagree with, or feel is inappropriate.  Far from it.  Rather, the physician is obliged to weigh the entirety of the situation as they see it.

However, we have to recognize that in these situations that the patient is likely psychologically competent and capable of participating in those decisions.  These decisions are not entirely at the whim to the doctor.  The doctor has other considerations they must give weight to.

A physician should not be compelled to participate in medical aid in dying should it be become legalized. However, there should be no undue delay in the provision of end of life care, including medical aid in dying.

The importance of this one statement cannot be underestimated.  Although it does not stipulate that there is a duty to refer, it essentially is saying that the doctor's role is not to confound the patient.  So, if the doctor has reason to suspect that the patient is incompetent, or perhaps that  the desire to end their life is temporary, then the physician needs to act accordingly to ensure that the patient has appropriate psychological supports.  If this is not the case, and all other things being equal, the physician should not act in a manner which confounds the patient's wishes.  There is an important principle at play here - and that is the patient's ability to participate in informed consent.  There is a considerable difference between a patient who is suffering chronic depression that has become suicidal and a patient who is suffering from terminal illness who says "it's time to go", and wants to exert some control over the circumstances of their death.

Similarly, I consider the issue of LGBT supports in the schools another case of weighing the interests of the parties involved to be critical.  Calgary's Bishop Henry has argued that because the Church teachings reject the validity of (in particular) transgender identities, that the Catholic Schools should not be obliged to provide supports for transgender students.  Yet, as much as the Church is free to claim that it doesn't believe that transgender identities are valid, there is clearly a body of students within their schools who are transgender.  A little like Iran's former president saying that Iran has no homosexuals the denial is a bit like sticking one's head in the sand.

However, the role of a school is first and foremost to ensure that their students are appropriately educated.  Even a school with affiliations to a particular religious faith must ensure that the environment is conducive to learning for all of the students who go to that school.  (and yes, there are transgender people who are Catholic in this world, in spite of the Church's teachings)

So, we have an ethical issue here.  The Church's position and past conduct of school administrations has been identified as creating an environment which is counterproductive to the learning needs of LGBT students in general, and transgender students in particular.  So, should the Church's doctrine trump the stated needs of LGBT students to have a safe learning environment?  Do the Bill 10 and related policy guidelines that Minister Eggen has put forward prevent the teaching of Catholic doctrine in those schools?  These various interests exist in a state of mutual tension.  An absolutist position such as the Bishops in Alberta have put forward on the matter naturally compromises the creation of an appropriate learning environment for these students in favour of an insistence on all aspects of a Catholic school reflecting Church teachings.  In taking such a position, the Bishops are essentially telling school boards, teachers and administrators not to follow the ethical obligations of being educators for one particular group of students.  Are Catholic LGBT students not worthy of ethical consideration?  A more reasonable approach would be to acknowledge that these students do exist, and that the schools have a universal obligation to ensure that the learning environment is appropriate and safe.  There is nothing in providing such accommodations which precludes the teaching of Catholic ideals in the classrooms.  LGBT students may not like certain aspects of Church dogma as it relates to them, but the classroom and the church are appropriate places to stand up and challenge those teachings.

Religious Truth is a concept, and aspirational ideal at best.  It deserves to be considered as an aspect of the ethical decisions we all have to make in our lives, but not as a trump card every time a difficult issue comes.

Speaking Of Hypocrisy

So, the Catholic Church thinks it has something relevant to say about physician assisted death?

After reading through the Bishops' letter to Alberta's Premier Notley, it's an amazing piece of hypocritical nonsense.

The Catholic Church is committed to protecting and caring for the most vulnerable people in our society; this includes, of course, those who suffer and dying Albertans. Catholic healthcare in Canada, and in our province, has given witness to this from our earliest history.

Except for those Albertans who happen to be LGBT, apparently.  

We want to be clear that, from a Catholic perspective, the intentional, willful act of killing oneself or another human being is morally wrong. Therefore, no Catholic - including elected officials and healthcare professionals - may advocate for, or participate in any way, whether by act or omission, in the intentional killing of another human being either by assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Once again, we see the Church attempting to dictate the actions of its membership through coercion.  I saw Bishop Henry use exactly this tactic during the gay marriage arguments in the 2000s, where he threatened to excommunicate any Catholic politician who voted for gay marriage.  It wasn't persuasive or relevant then, it isn't now.  

First, if laws and regulations governing the legalized acceptance of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia are to be adopted, then we must accept that they will, in principle and practice, affect all Albertans. Therefore, we ask that your government undertake a consultation process open to any and all who wish to speak to the issue.

Well, since the laws involved are predominantly Federal jurisdiction, I don't see where Alberta's government has much to say about the matter.  Outside of Quebec, no province seems to have significant plans on this matter, and are waiting for June when the Federal Government has to have passed new legislation.

Second, we are gravely concerned that the legalization of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia will place certain members of our common home at serious risk. In jurisdictions that have already adopted laws permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, what are purported to be “safeguards” against abuse of the law have proven in practice to be no safeguards at all. The measure of a just and ethical society is the extent to which it cares for - and protects - its most vulnerable members.

Really?  What examples would you cite?  Oh, I know, you'd probably dredge up the idiotic crap that LieSite has been spouting ever since a couple of countries in Europe changed their laws.  Besides being largely hysterical reporting, LieSite has an extreme agenda to start with.

However, then the Bishops delve into the bag of "pro-life" lies on the subject:

These are our mothers and our fathers; they built our homes and our province. They are not a burden, and they must not be led to feel that way through our individual and collective indifference.

Yeah.  Sure.  People are not going to ask the doctor to kill their parents off.  However, these Bishops might want to spend some time in a palliative care ward filled with people dying slow, agonizing deaths at the hands of disease before they pull such emotional arguments out of their cassocks.  (I'll come back to this in a moment)

Even today, many of these people often experience unjust discrimination and the sting of stigma from their family, friends, colleagues and society. In other jurisdictions, this group has in particular been disproportionately represented in cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Coming from a Church which denies the validity of transgender identities, and calls homosexuality "a sin", this position is almost laughable.  I wonder if it has occurred to them just how much their teachings contribute to an attempted suicide rate among transgender people that runs upwards of 40%?

They save the money shot for the very end, and delve into the messy pot of issues called "Conscience Rights":

Third, other provincial jurisdictions in Canada have proposed regulations that undermine the conscience rights of physicians and other healthcare workers. This must not be allowed to happen here. Physicians, other medical professionals, and our institutions have to be allowed the freedom that is theirs by right to exercise their conscience, not only to accord with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also as a matter of good medical practice.

Conscience rights is nothing more than the latest pro-life gambit to create a hierarchy of rights that places an individual's religious conscience at the top of the heap.  

Let me be clear.  Assisted death is a very prickly, emotional subject.  Yes, there are religious and conscience issues involved.  Lots of religions teach a particular ethic about life, and even without that stricture in someone's life, many would be rightly uncomfortable with such decisions.

However, it is far too simplistic to simply say "it's a sin, therefore it should be banned".  One only has to spend time in and around palliative care wards watching people in their last days and weeks to know that exiting this world is not always a peaceful, quiet experience.  Terminal illness can be painful and brutal, robbing people of autonomy, dignity and peace.  It's a terrifying, painful experience for some, and one that is not always remediated well by painkillers.

This is a matter of patient rights to self-determination and caregiver ethics coming into some degree of conflict.  Most ethics codes reflect the right of the patient to informed consent, and to refuse treatment.  We have to remember that the person at the center of this discussion is the patient, not the caregiver and definitely not the caregiver's church.  Even the CMA's statement on this subject is fairly clear - a doctor does not have to participate in the actual act, but they are not allowed to be an obstacle to it either.

Where the religious notion of "conscience rights" becomes problematic is that they have begun to extend it to include being "complicit in the deed", usually as a means to try and sidestep the duty to refer to a caregiver who is willing and capable.  We've seen this played with the abortion game, and I have no doubt that's what the Bishops would advocate here as well.  This is where we tip the scales and pass from supporting the individual's conscience rights and it becomes a matter of imposing one's conscience objections on the patient.  Considering the patient's state and vulnerability, this is not only problematic, it is arguably exploitative as it places the patient in a jeopardy situation where they then would have to find the means to access a willing caregiver.  (Which, if you are hospitalized or bedridden, can be damned difficult)

Alberta's Bishops would do us all a favour if they took a more nuanced approach to matters rather than simply trying to railroad the rest of the province with centuries old dogma.  

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.  

Bishop Henry, Bill 10 ... Lies, Lies and More Lies

If there is one thing that I find infuriating, it is when grown men like Bishop Henry lie.

In today's Calgary Herald, there is a copy of a pastoral letter that Bishop Henry has had distributed through the churches of his diocese.  In it, we find the following little gem:

The mandating of Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) is problematic for a number of reasons.  It infringes parental authority over their children, the freedom to instruct one's children in a manner consistent with their faith, and citizens rights to manifest their religious beliefs by worship and practice in the absence of coercion or constraint by government.

First of all, Bill 202 did not "mandate" the creation of GSAs.  What it does is remove the ability for a school board or school to refuse to allow a GSA to be created.

Nobody is saying that participation in a GSA is mandatory for the students, nor is it mandatory for parents to allow their children to participate in the GSA.  The obligation for schools is to allow the organization.  No more, no less.  The Bishop's argument here is a distortion of the reality - a lie.

As for the "freedom to instruct one's children", let's have a little discussion about that shall we?  Nobody is talking about the GSA being mandatory.  Nor is the GSA a "teaching" moment.  We are talking about a student led organization providing support to other students.  So, just where is this right being "infringed"?  I'm pretty sure that all sorts of school activities violate one aspect or another of either the bible or the RC Catechism, and we don't hear the bishops moaning about them.  Social groups in schools exist all the time.  If the RC church leaders think that they don't have gay students in their halls, perhaps they need to do some learning.

So, it must come down to the right to "manifest their religious beliefs ...".  Let's consider this for a moment.  The bishops are basically arguing that their beliefs trump the rights of students.  In this case, their "belief" that homosexuality is a sin.  So what?  That hasn't made it go away in the last 2,000 years or so, I don't think it's going away anytime soon.  Let's consider that discussion around "manifesting religious beliefs" a little further.  Who is manifesting which beliefs here?  Does the student not have a right to express their beliefs, or is that now a right reserved solely for the parents?  Do the rights of a religious school extend to, for example, not teaching science because they don't believe in evolution or they want to believe that the earth is flat?

The fact is that GSAs reduce suicide in the student population.  Religion doesn't reduce suicide among LGBTQ students.  In fact, arguably, "religious beliefs" are near the top of the list for reasons that LGBTQ youth end up suicidal.  Where do the hostile judgments come from most frequently?  Those who claim to have religious "belief" justifying them.  The most fervent of believers are often among the worst abusers in this regard.

A number of recent studies have identified groups of students who are most often bullied.  The Toronto District School Board Research Report reported that students most frequently face bullying attacks based on their physical appearance (38%), their grades or marks (17%) their cultural background (11%) or their gender (6%).  It is imperative that we address the root issue - bullying.

Yeah...let's talk about that for a minute.  38% of students have been harassed about their physical appearance.  According to Egale's survey of LGBTQ students in Canada,  74% of transgender students and 55% of LGB students have been verbally harassed; 37% of transgender students and 21% of LGB students have been physically assaulted in our schools.

I cannot emphasize enough how appalling this really is.  LGBTQ students are around 5% of the population, and yet they are grossly overrepresented as victims of bullying.  The numbers that Bishop Henry cites bury this reality.  Yes, we need to address bullying.  GSAs are a tool for doing so.  Whining because they place an emphasis on normalizing people's sexual and gender identities is simply an attempt at erasure.

Bill 10 is a bad piece of legislation.  Laurie Blakeman's Bill 202 was the correct solution to this problem in the first place.  Let me be absolutely clear about that.  There should be no exemptions.  Bullying is wrong.  Using your "faith" to justify erasure and continued harassment is wrong.

If Alberta students want to create a mutually supportive alliance in a school, that should be their right, without exception and without interference.

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

The Fight For Rights Never Stops

Canada has had legal same sex marriage for a decade.  The world hasn't ended, society hasn't collapsed into anarchy, people aren't marrying their goats, lawnmowers or anything else either.

On the heels of the US Supreme Court rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8, I found that Calgary's hardline Bishop, Fred Henry, has once again opened his yap on the subject.

But they do copy marriage and family, and in the process, they compete with and diminish the uniquely important status of both. While the culture has failed in many ways to be marriage-strengthening, this is no reason to give up. Now is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.

More or less this is the standard whining that we heard from Henry during the debates over legalizing same sex marriage in Canada.

Calgary Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz wrote a letter which correctly chastises the Bishop for his criticisms.

Henry says “God’s wise design” confirms that differences between the genders matter. To which anyone who believes in God should reply that, as part of God’s wise design, He has also created people who are homosexual.

A day later, we get the following drivel published as a letter to the editor:

Legal and financial equality can be achieved through civil unions without attaching the sacred term "marriage." But the very river of life flows through the union of a man and woman. This does not occur in any samesex relationship. Everyone needs a mother and a father. Why would any caring society intentionally deprive children of that universally recognized need?

Just as there is no rest in the abortion rights discussion the same applies to equality rights for LGBT people or other minority groups.  As much as it would be nice to relax and take a break, we must remember the old saying "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

 

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.

Yet Another Celibate In A Cassock On Sexuality

I see Calgary's Bishop Henry is dutifully parroting his masters in the Vatican:

In a letter to the editor, Henry said the Christian virtues of chastity, abstinence and fidelity are "the most effective means of primary HIV prevention," and should not be pushed aside as valid prevention options in favour of passing out condoms.

When asked about his opposition to the Stephen Lewis Foundation, Henry said teachers do have other options in supporting AIDS charity efforts in Africa.

"If you have two businesses or organizations, one that doesn't support your values and mission statement and an-other that does, which one are you going to support? I think that the answer is obvious," Henry told the Herald in an e-mail.

Glad to see you are such an obedient scribe for your masters, Henry...now, perhaps you might do something useful and start actually thinking for yourself and looking at the reality of the world. Perhaps you might figure out that people have sex all the time - regardless of what moralizing stance the Catholic Church puts forward.

Let's Look At The Other Side of This ...

So, we have Calgary's Bishop Henry expounding upon the Roman Catholic Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.

I'm going to start with Henry's conclusion and then work backwards from there, because this piece of sophistry is offensive in the extreme.

Alfred North Whitehead, a noted historian of science, concluded: “that the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honourable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.” The traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and a victim of the church’s opposition to science is little more than a caricature.

Henry's conclusion here is that the Church was being oh-so-kind-and-just towards Galileo. But let's think about this for a moment. It doesn't matter how you slice this one, the Church fundamentally imprisoned the man - even if it was in his own home. A cage, no matter how guilded it may be remains a cage nonetheless. We should not lose sight of this.

The historical record is not quite that simple.

Galileo took his observation to the Jesuits who were among the leading astronomers of the day and they agreed with him that his sightings had strengthened the case for heliocentrism. The Jesuits told him that the church was divided, but the question was still open, and they did not think that Galileo had clinched the case.

When Galileo was reported to the Inquisition, Cardinal Bellarmine met with him. This was not a normal Inquisitorial procedure, but Galileo came to Rome in 1616 as a celebrity with great fanfare, where he stayed at the Medici Villa, met with the pope more than once, and attended receptions given by various bishops and cardinals.

Bellarmine wrote: “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still if there were a real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe ... and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth around the sun, then we should proceed with great circumspection in explaining certain passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.”

Let me summarize this briefly - essentially, Cardinal Bellarmine told Galileo to shut up because he wasn't willing to consider Galileo's proposal. Regardless of what instruments of inquiry the Inquisition used, the end conclusion is the same, the Church took specific steps to quash an idea because it offended their ideas, in particular with respect to scripture.

Henry then claims the following to justify why the Church imprisoned Galileo:

Galileo was confident now that he could openly preach heliocentrism and in 1632 he published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. This created a threefold problematic.

First, his so-called demonstration of the truth of heliocentrism was faulty. One of Galileo’s main arguments was that the rapid motion of the earth around the sun was responsible for the ocean tides. Galileo also assumed that planets move in circular paths, even though Kepler had shown that the planetary orbits are elliptical. Galileo contended that Kepler was wrong.

Okay...let's consider this in terms of scientific inquiry in general. Last I checked, investigation of the natural world in which we live tends to lead down lots of 'dead ends' and comes up with the odd gem of insight. This is why science gets published in journals and is often severely critiqued by peers. Flaws in theories happen all the time. Successful theories - no matter how you look at them - adapt and change as new evidence refines them. Yes, Galileo and Kepler disagreed on the orbital behaviours of planets. Given the era, that's a matter of interpreting the available evidence. By no means is this adequate reason for the Church's heavy handedness towards Galileo.

Secondly, Galileo embarrassed the pope by constructing his dialogue between two figures, one representing himself and the other representing the pope, who was given the name “Simplicio.” Of course, the foolish claims by Simplicio were refuted by the character speaking for Galileo.

Considering that dialog was a common way of expressing and arguing for a new idea at the time, I don't see any particular surprises in this. If the church interpreted "Simplicio" as being the Pope, well, all I can say there is that's a well-placed needle - especially given Galileo's treatment by the Inquisition a few years prior.

It's pretty hard to see this as anything other than someone smarting from being slapped around intellectually. Embarrassment of the Pope is hardly reason for imprisonment, is it?

Thirdly, Galileo’s writings were not confined to scientific issues; he argued that the Bible was largely allegorical and required constant reinterpretation to excavate its true meaning. The Jesuits had warned him not to venture into this territory as Scriptural interpretation was the church’s area but he ignored the advice and was once again reported to the Inquisition.

In 1633 Galileo returned to Rome, where again he was treated with respect. However, during the investigation, someone found Bellarmine’s notes in the file. Furthermore, Galileo had not told anyone about his previous agreement. Now Galileo was viewed as having deceived the church as well as having failed to live up to his agreements. Incredibly, for some strange reason, Galileo maintained that his Dialogue did not constitute a defence of heliocentrism.

Again, let's consider this further. The Church has decided in its finite wisdom that Galileo was arguing about more than just the science of astronomy (or astrology as it was understood at the time - astronomy arose from astrology). Apparently, he is making statements about how scripture should be interpreted. Big deal. The Church might consider this to be heresy or worse, but really, what he has done is present a challenge to church dogma. Whether it is the dogma of heliocentrism, or the dogma that the Catechism is the only valid guide to interpreting scripture, it doesn't really matter.

Galileo was still imprisoned for expressing ideas that the Church found offensive. In short, the Church acted with a very heavy hand to squelch thought and discourse.

Galileo was never charged with heresy, and never placed in a dungeon or tortured in any way. Technically he was under house arrest in his villa in Florence but enjoyed considerable freedom. The church also permitted him to continue his scientific work on matters unrelated to heliocentrism. He died of natural causes in 1642.

Why, how magnanamous of the Church. They only imprisoned him in his own home for the rest of his life for daring to challenge the Church's assumptions and dogma.

Sorry, Bishop. No matter how I look at it, this is another case where the Church blew it and is now trying desperately to justify its actions. Like the Church's current dogmas about human sexuality, the Galileo case is about controlling people and controlling what they think and believe.

... and we won't pay too much attention to the fact that it took the Church until 1992 to even express regret. A mere 350 years after Galileo died in Church custody. I'll remind myself of the Church's generosity in justice every time I hear another story about the Church excommunicating people for doing the right thing.

The Galileo story is really one that tells us how the Church ceased to be a source of enlightenment and wisdom, and became a political power out to squelch any dissent that would weaken their control over humanity.

That's Reasoned?

I see that Calgary's Bishop Henry continues to faithfully repeat whatever comes out of Rome ... in this case, he's trying to defend his blind opposition to HPV vaccination.

This is particularly galling because the suppositions the Bishop (and the RC Church in general) are operating from are fundamentally flawed - to the point of making the conclusions drawn from those assumptions quite ridiculous.

Besides raising the issue of side effects and questions about long range effectiveness, the Bishop falls into the classic Catholic line about sexuality.

Yes, there are legitimate questions worthy of study in respect to the vaccine's long term effectiveness - and this does warrant ongoing study. Similarly, as with any vaccine, side effects need to be studied and analyzed as the vaccine is put into broader use. However, that doesn't justify being obstructive to the availability of the medication in question - which is precisely what the Bishop has argued for.

We should teach critical thinking skills; provide factual information and guidelines as needed; and teach right from wrong and equip our youth for proper decision-making.

That's almost reasoned enough to make sense - then he proceeds to demonstrate that it is in fact rooted in standard dogma about sexuality (which frankly seems to be more 'ostriching' than anything else):

A school-based approach to vaccination runs the risk of sending at least an implicit message that early sexual intercourse is allowed, as long as one uses "protection."

I cannot even begin to express how outrageously false this claim is. There isn't a shred of rational evidence to support the inference made. It also vastly underestimates how much knowledge and awareness that youth have about sexuality. (It wasn't hard to get when I grew up - and that was long before the easy availability of the Internet)

The "popular" wisdom these days insists that because we can't stop our children from engaging in pre-marital sex, and because such sex can be dangerous and have bad effects, we should do everything we can to protect our youngsters by vaccinating them against the HPV virus.

Well, Bishop, I'd like for you to reflect upon 2,000 odd years of Church history - and then demonstrate to me how the Church's anti-sex dogma has changed a thing in terms of the activities of youth. There's a small, not so trivial aspect of this picture that you are overlooking - namely the impact of those initial flushes of hormones that are manifest at puberty. Teenagers aren't terribly rational creatures at the best of times, and they are infinitely curious about everything - in particular the bodies of those that they have just discovered to be interesting. This hasn't changed since humankind hid in caves, and I don't exactly expect it to change based on the moralizing idiocy that comes from the pulpit.

Respecting the God-given designs for our sexuality and struggling towards sexual self-mastery is one of the great challenges of our age, and probably of every age. Arguments in favour of widespread availability of the HPV vaccine are emblematic of a collective loss of nerve in the face of powerful libertine pressures within our culture.

Would this be the same "God-given designs" that treat women as property? That blame women for being 'barren' when the husband is firing blanks? The same designs that blame women for being unfaithful to their husbands, but celebrate the man who has multiple wives?

Making the HPV vaccine available has nothing to do with a loss of nerve, rather it has to do with a recognition that if we can do something to prevent a cancer that can kill, that just maybe it's worth doing - because we care about our daughters too.

It infuriates me to no end that the churches insist on attempting to regulate people's sexuality - and do so in a manner that not only suppresses information, but ultimately makes it harder, not easier, for people to deal with not only their sexuality, but the consequences of being a sexual human being. Abstinence only works on paper - as a convenient way of shaming people for doing what comes most naturally to every species of life on this planet. For an idea about just how ultimately ineffective abstinence programs are, consider this essay - which points out, more or less that such programs do little, if anything ultimately to curb teenage hormones and curiousity - and worse, can arguably be accused of contributing to not only higher rates of teen pregnancy and the increased transmission of STIs. No matter how I slice it, the biblical reality cheque just bounced.

More on CCSB and HPV Vaccination

Remember the Calgary RC School Board refusing to allow HPV vaccination in their schools? Well, it seems that Bishop Henry has chosen to respond:

Bishop Henry said the Catholic bishops of Alberta are concerned not only about the harmful side-effects associated with the vaccine, but very particularly about the conflicting message the vaccination program sends to young girls about chastity and sexual promiscuity and about putting schools in a position of "grave moral compromise."

"Catholic teaching is that sexuality is a God-given gift that should be reserved to marriage," they said in a press release in June, warning parents that consenting to this vaccination was condoning pre-marital sex.

I do not believe these people. Dogma rules all for them, reality be damned.

This vacant claim that providing HPV protection (even if it is incomplete) has nothing to do with "conflicting messages" about chastity - it is about PREVENTING DISEASE. No more, and no less.

This so-called "moral" stance is nothing more than an extension of the usual RC Church's view of female sexuality (namely that it should never be seen, heard or thought of, lest it lead one into "sin" - of course, we'll ignore the fact that the whole perspective is so male-focused it's pathetic)

While I agree that there are long term questions around the HPV vaccine in terms of effectiveness and potential side effects, that's quite a different discussion, and strikes me as little more than an attempt to make an irrational decision sound like it is based on something rational.

What is offensive here is that Bishop Henry - a man who will never have or raise children by his own vows - thinks he can decide for all Catholic parents what to do in this matter.

But then again, one only has to look at the kind of moralizing idiocy around female dress to understand how clueless these people can actually be:

Many women hope that in dressing provocatively men will find them attractive and desirable, with a view to a lasting relationship. In reality, however, few, if any, men view a scantily clad young woman walking down the street and gape after her with thoughts like, "What a beautiful girl, I wish I could marry her."

A paragraph that could only be written by a man - and one who is obviously quite clueless about women ... a state which he seems to share with Bishop Henry.

Confusing The Issues

I do not believe the reasoning given by the Calgary RC School Board in refusing to make HPV vaccine available through their schools:

Calgary Catholic school board members voted Wednesday night not to make the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine available in schools.

Trustee Mary Martin said Calgary Bishop Fred Henry didn't want to appear to be condoning pre-marital sex.

"The bishop felt it was a moral issue."

When will idiots like Bishop Henry get it through their thick skulls that preventing disease has exactly NOTHING TO DO with premarital sex?

This meme about providing the vaccine "might give the impression that ..." is completely specious. It's like saying that sex education is giving license for people to engage in extra-marital sex. It's completely devoid of any anchor in reality.

Using the Bishop's logic, we shouldn't provide treatment for Syphilis - because the afflicted must be involved in immoral behaviour.

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.