Jan. 28, 2005
My brothers and sisters in Christ:
Over the next few weeks, Canada’s Members of Parliament will be engaged in one of the most significant debates of our age—a debate about taking the definition of marriage and reconstructing it as something entirely different.
Marriage has always been respected as an institution existing for the common good of the family and society. Marriage has always been recognized as the necessary context for raising and educating children, the foundation of future generations. The reality of marriage is that it supersedes politics and man-made laws.
From the perspective of reason, and from a faith perspective as Catholics, we must hold to the definition of marriage as an institution whose natural purpose is the good of the couple and the procreation and education of children.
In the covenant of marriage, a man and a woman not only share a deep love for one another, but also are invited to become partners with God in creating a new human life. These two aspects—the sharing of love between husband and wife, and the creation and nurturing of new life—are inseparable. They make marriage what it is.
Some within society, supported by judges and legislators, are trying to turn the marriage debate into a human rights issue, but that is not what marriage is about. As a social institution, marriage is concerned with the common good, not individual rights.
At a recent gathering of the bishops of Western Canada, we shared with each other some of the ways our dioceses might help all of us to understand the issues surrounding marriage more thoroughly. One way to increase understanding is to address the claims that are being made in support of redefining marriage, and to show that they are not valid from any point of view based on reason.
I would like to address some of the specific arguments for redefining marriage:
1. Tolerance. Changing marriage’s definition feels like the fair thing to do, but it is a false tolerance. The procreative potential of marriage is a basic element of what marriage is, and it is not unjust to insist that marriage is a complementary union of a man and a woman. This is not a human rights issue, it is about recognizing the biological basis for the social structure that protects the procreation and nurturing of children in our society.
2. The human dignity argument is similar: it says the current law treats people with homosexual attractions as second-class citizens. Now human dignity certainly requires that all people must be treated with respect. It does not mean we must regard a homosexual relationship as the same as a marriage, any more than any two other adults living together—two friends, for example, or a mother and her daughter—are treated as though they are married. The state certainly has the power to authorize social benefits for any of its citizens, without redefining marriage.
3. The idea that is also used is that times change and we simply need to keep pace with changing social views. Indeed, the Supreme Court asserted that it has the right to authorize the government to change the definition of marriage because our constitution is a living tree. Perhaps our constitution is developing, but the fact of development is not the issue. The question is whether the development is legitimate. There must be some standard for determining whether growth builds organically on what is good, in a way consistent with the object’s nature. Does an acorn grow into a rose? No, it becomes an oak. In the same way, any development in the legal definition of marriage must be consistent with the stable reality of marriage and the family, in which children are brought into the world and nurtured.
4. The statement of “live and let live” is also argued. We are told the courts are not imposing their religious beliefs on us, and we should not impose ours on others. This misstates the case, however. The assertion that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman is not primarily a religious position. It is evident to people of all faiths and of no faith. It is based upon reason before it is based upon any faith.
5. We are assured that there is no threat to religious leaders since they are not forced to perform these proposed marriages. A reading of the Supreme Court’s decision, however, is not as comforting. Even the court’s wording suggests there might in the future be particular circumstances that could lead to religious officials being compelled to perform these ceremonies. The court does not suggest what those circumstances might be, but the fact that the court itself raised them is troubling. What’s more, some provincial governments are already compelling civil officials to perform these marriages against their conscience or resign. We must also wonder whether assurances made to religious leaders will protect parents who do not want the normalcy of homosexual relationships taught in their schools, as is likely once it is defined as a human right.
6. Finally, we hear the argument that Jesus accepted everyone as he or she was. Like Jesus, we must welcome everyone with unconditional love. We must treat people with homosexual attractions with full dignity and respect. However, Jesus did not teach that any behaviour is acceptable as long as someone wants it. The authentic Jesus called for moral conversion, and repentance. Just as the woman caught in adultery was told to go her way, and not to sin again, true love means to help our brothers and sisters to escape a path that leads nowhere.
I ask you to share these points with your Members of Parliament. We hope they will help inform consciences, as we take the time to reflect and to pray on these issues. Thus we will be able to make truly enlightened decisions, based on reason and faith.
+Raymond Roussin, SM
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver