|
On January 23, vote for traditional marriage An
issue in the coming election, On
June 28, 2005, after more than two years of debate, Canada's
controversial same-sex marriage legislation (Bill C-38) was passed by a
vote of 158 for and 133 against in the House of Commons. Marriage, which
was until then “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others” is now, with this new law, redefined as “the union of two
persons to the exclusion of all others,” thus allowing the union of
two homosexuals to be called marriage. To call “marriage” something that cannot produce life goes against
plain common sense. To refresh the memory of those who say there is
nothing wrong with this new law, here is the official teaching of the
Church. The most authoritative document on this issue is the document
issued on July 31, 2003 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the present Pope),
then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled
“Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to
unions between homosexual persons”: “The
Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes
reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as
such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any
relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator
with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can
erase from the human spirit the
certainty
that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual
personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the
communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each
other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing
of new human lives. “There
are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any
way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and
family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural
moral law. Homosexual acts `close the sexual act to the gift of life.
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
Under no circumstances can they be approved'. (Catechism
of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.) “In
those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or
have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear
and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of
formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely
unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the
level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the
right to conscientious objection.” And
now, read what Cardinal Ratzinger said about so-called Catholic
politicians who vote in favor of same-sex marriage: “If
it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal
recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do
so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as
politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual
unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following
ethical indications. When legislation in favour of the recognition of
homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative
assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his
opposition clearly and publicly, and to vote against it. To vote in
favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.” Despite all of these warnings, many politicians who claim to be
“practicing Catholics” voted for same-sex marriages, beginning with
Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, who forced all his cabinet to also
vote for it. So, out of the 133 Liberal Members of Parliament, only 32
broke ranks with their party by voting against the bill. On the other
end, out of the 96 Conservative MPs present in the House, 93 voted
against the bill, and only 3 voted for it. 46 MPs of the Bloc voted for
it, and 5 against; out of the 19 NPD Members of Parliament, only one
voted against it. Even
if gay marriage is now the law of the country, the fight is far from
being over, and as the Canadian Bishops said, it will be a definite
issue in the coming election (January 23, 2006). In their comment after
the approval of Bill C-38, the Bishops said on July 20, 2005: “Although
Bill C-38 has now been approved as federal legislation in Canada, the
fundamental and universal reality of marriage remains the exclusive
union of a man and a woman for life. From the perspective of the
Catholic Church, the new federal statute falsifies moral values and
principles. Catholics are to continue to oppose it, and to ensure that
all provincial and territorial regulations on the solemnization of
marriages provide full protection for freedom of conscience and
religion, as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “Unfortunately,
there are some Catholics who have promoted the redefinition of marriage,
including politicians who have voted in its favour. In this regard, they
are in dissent from the teaching of the Church as enunciated by the Holy
Father and the Bishops. This is a serious and problematic matter. “Canadians
in general have been and remain deeply divided about changing the nature
of marriage and altering its basic meaning. It is clear this debate is
far from over, and that it will be a significant issue in the upcoming
federal election.” So
if you care about the protection of the definition of traditional
marriage, please vote for a candidate who supports this definition. This
is not a partisan issue; it is about defending Christian values. The
platform of all the parties is basically the same (especially about
finance, since none of them dare to attack the present debt-money
system), but it happens that there is only one party in the coming
election that officially stands up for traditional marriage. On the
first day of the election campaign, Conservative leader Stephen Harper
said that he would hold a free vote to re-establish the traditional
definition of marriage if he becomes prime minister. All the other main
parties said they favor same-sex marriages.
This article was published in the October-November-December, 2005 issue of “Michael”. |