Catholic Group Wonders “Why the Compromise on Homosexual Civil Unions?”

TORONTO, September 8, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Prominent Catholic leaders in Canada have been saying things which seem to contradict the recent Vatican statement on homosexual civil unions.  Campaign Life Catholic, has questioned the statements in light of Vatican teaching and asked “Why the compromise?”  In a recent homily on the topic, Ottawa’s Archbishop Marcel Gervais said, “As Roman Catholics, we can understand that the civil authorities may wish to provide homosexual couples with the same sort of protection and benefits as those provided to men and women who are married.  But the sum of those benefits need not include a redefinition of marriage.”  However, Hilary White of Campaign Life Catholic points out that “it is precisely AS ROMAN CATHOLICS that we must work that society does not provide marriage-like benefits to homosexual couples.” Or, as the Vatican put it in its latest document on the subject, “it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions.”  Archbishop Anthony Meagher of Kingston went even further in an early August letter saying, “There is evidence of same-sex unions that are stable, loving and nurturing in many ways for each partner. As well, situations can arise where same-sex partners who have loved each other in a stable union for years are not allowed to share in some important moments of life.  …  Our society may very well need to make accommodation to deal with such de facto same-sex unions.”  He continues, “Some Catholics may take exception to the fact that I seem to be saying that not everything about a same-sex union is wrong.  If one interprets what I have said as being open to commending same-sex partners for stability, faithfulness, kindness, and perseverance when one or other is sick or incapacitated, such an understanding is perfectly correct.”“I guess that would mean that we could applaud the certain loving aspects of adulterous relations as well,” responded White.  She lamented that such statements from Church leaders “create much confusion among Catholic faithful”. Again the Vatican document says, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. … Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”  A prominent Canadian Catholic, constitutional lawyer Iain Benson, one of the legal advisors to the Interfaith Coalition challenging the homosexual marriage decision, is also advising compromise.  Benson, executive director of the Centre for Cultural Renewal was quoted in the Catholic register as saying “Leave marriage to the religions. The state will only deal with civil incidents of marriage (property, pensions, etc.).  That is as it should be in our current state.”  White asked, “Are we not to be the salt and light of the world?,” she quoted the Vatican’s recent document on Catholics in political life noting, “the Vatican has said that the homosexual-unions question is one of the ‘moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation,’ and therefore the Vatican instructs, ‘in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.’”  White concluded, “Catholic politicians must remember that despite all the argumentation dancing around compromise, the Vatican has absolutely insisted, under pain of mortal sin, that Catholic politicians vote against even such compromise civil union legislation.”  She stressed that “No argument of ‘a judge-created law already in existence’ can be made.”  As the Vatican document says, “When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker 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.”