Tue Jan 18/05
I like my TV loud, my beer cold, and my homosexuals flaming 

Here is the pastoral letter that will be read to parishioners of the Calgary Archdiocese this coming Sunday. It really amazes me that a church with such a fantastically retrograde worldview can keep a hold of its urban Canadian congregations. Indeed, it's almost impossible for me to picture the Catholics I know sitting through such nonsense (although they don't seem to go to church very often — I suppose that helps), and I would have thought that either the anti-homosexual sentiment itself or the sheer lack of critical thought that went into this letter might bring secular Calgarian Catholics to their feet in protest. (But then, I really don't understand organized religion at all.)

The bulk of the brouhaha has surrounded Bishop Henry's conflation of homosexuality with other vices — in this case adultery, prostitution and pornography — and his entreaty that "the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them." But come on, that's boring — it's the same pile of dog shit that people like Cheryl Gallant and Pat Robertson step in all the time. For my money, the real noodle-scratcher in Henry's letter is as follows:

Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex "marriage" are not the financial or health or inheritance or pension benefits associated with marriage. The search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship is not the driving force. The principal objective in seeking same-sex "marriage" is not really even about equality rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.

It's as if he lapsed into a coma in 1968, awoke 37 years later to find that gay marriage was about to become a reality, and just assumed that attitudes towards homosexuality hadn't changed. "What the… gay marriage?! That damn Supreme Court… Susie, take a letter!" The idea that gay marriage is some sort of covert homo plot to win people over by buying semi-detached homes, raising well-adjusted adopted children and fraternizing with the neighbours is as ridiculous as it is mean-spirited (not to mention that I can hardly think of a more legitimate or honest way to win acceptance for one's lifestyle). Most people — even most Catholics, I unscientifically propose — respect homosexuality. Even the staunchest judicial activism paranoiacs must admit that the primary flow of acceptance is running from that respect towards gay marriage, and not the other way around.

I thought this was good for a chuckle, too:

…a man and a woman wanting to marry may be completely different in their characteristics such as: colour, ethnicity, in wealth and social status, physical attributes, and educational background. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage.

Notice what's missing? Unfortunately for Bishop Henry and the Catholic Church, I think most people are going to have an awfully hard time accepting a definition of marriage that views a man and a woman's differing ways of worshipping the same god as an "insurmountable obstacle".

[UPDATE Wed Jan 19/05: Matt Fenwick pointed me in the direction of a small cache of articles Bishop Henry has written for the Calgary Sun. Turns out he's a bit of a lefty, actually — "a full-on NDP supporter." Help the poor, Mr Klein! Bravo for staying out of Iraq! Where, oh where, is a Calgarian Catholic to mark his X?]

-contact-