Letter on  Marriage to Parishioner

I'll begin by addressing an issue you bring up in your e-mail Introduction to your letter, that of your personal faith journey within the Roman Catholic Church. In theology, we say that there is a "hierarchy of truths" embodied in Catholic teachings. This is to say that some "truths" are more foundational than others, that there is an order of importance in the various doctrines that make up the body of Catholic teachings. I think it's essential to remember that issues of human sexuality are not foundational to the Christian faith as lived and taught in the Catholic Church. Not to say that these issues are not important, but they are not central. The central, foundational issues are summed up in the Creed we say at Mass every Sunday: faith in God, Father, Son and Spirit; God's action in the world to lead humanity to true hapiness; the Spirit's work through us in the world as we strive for God's kingdom. I invite you, as a critical, thinking Catholic, to not let go of these foundational truths as you struggle with the secondary issues of the Church's teachings.

Now, concerning the specific question of homosexual unions, it's Important to understand that the Church's teaching on this issue flows less from a "religious" perspective than from a "philosophical" perspective. You might find such a distinction spurious, but it is important to understand why Church leaders feel they can call government leaders to take a specific stance on this issue. If it was only a "religious" question, Church leaders would be wrong in arguing for legal protection for the traditional understanding of marriage: it would be like asking that a law be passed forcing every Canadian to attend Church on Sunday. The bishops would never ask for such a law, because Church attendance is a purely "religious" question. But the bishops understand the notion of marriage as a "philosophical" one; a notion that is not primarily religious, but anthropological and social. They argue from a "philosophical" understanding of marriage, not from a "religious" understanding. This "philosophical" understanding is shared by many people of various faiths and by many who do not belong to any religion at all. It is because of the "philosophical" nature of this question that the bishops feel they have the right and duty to get involved in the social debate on this issue.

This "philosophical" understanding of marriage is based on a critical reflection of what marriage is within society. This "philosophical" approach sees more than love, sex, faithfulness and permanence as inherent to marriage. Indeed, if marriage only included these four qualities, then homosexual unions could be understood as marriages. But the "philosophical" approach developed within the Church identifies two other elements as inherent to marriage: complementarity and procreation. In other words, marriage brings together two individuals who are sexually polar opposites (a male and a female) in a relationship of complementarity; and it is out of the sexual expression of that relationship that children are born procreation.)

Such an understanding of marriage rules out the possibility of two people of the same sex being able to be bound in marriage, for they cannot bring the elements of complementarity and procreation into the relationship.

You will probably disagree with this "philosophical" understanding of marriage, but I simply want you to try to understand that what the bishops are doing is trying to present this understanding as the correct one, the one that arises out of an impartial, reasoned reflection on the nature of human beings, sexuality and procreation. It is not "anti-gay". The bishops do not start from the premise that homosexuals are evil people and must be excluded from certain rights. They start from a reflection on what marriage is about, and come to the conclusion that a homosexual relationship does not completely correspond to the reality of what marriage is meant to be.

Unfortunately, some people do hide an "anti-gay" agenda behind this position, and use the Church's tradition to denigrate homosexuals, to debase them and deny their basic human worth. I deplore this attitude, and deeply regret it. But this is not the bishops' intention.

Now, having established this context, let me try to answer some of your individual points.

1. It is true that Jesus challenged an unruly mob by asking those without transgressions to cast the first stone. But after that mob left, he turned to the woman who had been caught in adultery and told her "go and sin no more." Jesus did not reject or condemn her, but he did tell her that her way of life did not correspond to God's will, and he challenged her to change her "lifestyle". The bishops are trying to do the same in this particular issue: not reject or condemn anyone, but at the same time say that not all ways of living one's sexuality or relationships are compatible with God's will, and that we need to seek God's will and, if necessary, change our choices and decisions so that we will "sin no more."
2. You are right in asserting that, in some cases, homosexual couples have been better "parents" to some children than certain heterosexual couples. You are also right in saying that it is wrong to disparage people simply because of their sexual orientation. And you are also right in saying that a child should not be less valued simply because he or she grew up in a non-traditional household. But it does seem that nature itself provides in the heterosexual, loving and faithful couple the ideal milieu for the nurturing and education of children. This is the ideal that the bishops believe must be upheld, fostered and protected. To set this ideal up as one to be protected particularly by law is not to say that all other situations are evil or bad... but it is to say that, normally, children should be raised by those who brought them into the world through the sexual expression of their faithful, mutual love.

3. Concerning the right of bishops to try to push forward a "Catholic" perspective in a "pluralistic" society, I refer you to the above distinction between "religious" perspective and "philosophical" perspective. Let me remind you that it is also from this "philosophical" perspective that the bishops of Canada have put pressure on the Canadian government to develop economic policies that will be attentive to the needs of the poor, to reach out to third-world countries in forgiving their national debts, to be attentive to ecological issues when developing industrial policy, to not get involved in unjust wars. In all these issues, the bishops have taken specific stances and called politicians to consider them in their debates.

   It is in this same perspective that the bishops have waded into the emotional, divisive and controversial issue of same-sex unions. It is part of a bishop's mission to put forth the Church's wisdom as well as he can, in order to contribute to the well-being of the whole society. This is what motivates the bishops in this issue also.

4. Just to pick up on one expression, ......: you accuse the Church of "disguising its bigotry as morality." May I suggest to you that, when you accuse Church leaders this way, you are being as judgemental as those who would use the Church's teachings to denigrate and devalue homosexuals? We might not agree on where the truth lies in this issue, but the disagreement should not give way to insulting and hurtful expressions. I am really trying to hear what you have to say, and to respect it: I invite you to render me the same courtesy.

At the end of this long letter, I want to thank you once again for having written me on this subject. You have challenged me to try to explain to you why we bishops are taking the stance we are taking, and in so doing have forced me to ponder and further my own reflection on this difficult issue. I pray that, in spite of our different outlooks on this question, we will stay united in a common faith in the God of Jesus-Christ, who calls us to justice, peace and joy.

Yours truly,

+ Paul-André Durocher