'Harmful to society'

What's in a word? A possible answer to that age-old question is: A world is in a word. Words keep the fabric of society intact. Play around with words and you have a disaster of the first degree on your hands.

Start calling oranges apples; and airplanes ships; and women men; and we will soon find out what happens. Society will disintegrate. The same applies to marriage.

It was always considered to be a union between a man and a woman (or a man and several women). Now there are those who want to radically change the nature of this institution based in nature and blessed by God.

There are those who say that marriage is the union between two persons. A recent challenge came from Canada. On June 10 the Ontario Court not only decided that marriage is a union between two persons but also said that to call marriage a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

This decision is one in a series taken as a result of decades of pressures by gay movements. The Canadian parliament - which in 1999 defined marriage as a union between man and woman - is expected to take a position on the subject.

On the other hand, on July 30, US President George W. Bush told reporters in Washington that White House lawyers were exploring ways to ensure that "marriage" remains legally defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Some US lawmakers have proposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

In a 12-page document released on July 31, the Vatican took a very strong position on the subject. The document is entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons".

A note at the end of the document said it had been approved by Pope John Paul II, who ordered its publication. It expressed particular alarm at moves to allow gay couples to adopt children, which it said would be a form of "violence" against children and "gravely immoral".

In the same document the Vatican called on law-makers to offer "clear and emphatic opposition" to such measures, which it said were contrary to human nature and ultimately harmful to society.

It instructed Catholic politicians that they were morally bound to oppose such "gravely unjust laws" and said all public servants had the right to conscientious objection if they were asked to apply them.

Mgr Luño, assigned by the Holy See to comment on the text presented to the press, explained: "It touches a new aspect, which is that of political ethics; it is not concerned with personal ethics, analysed previously in other documents."

This aspect will prove to be one of the most controversial. Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, Alberta, suggested that Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, a Catholic, risked "his eternal salvation" if he made same-sex marriage legal. This statement caused many ripples and was not shared by all.

Mgr Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), said: "Many people like Bishop Henry because he always expresses himself with colour and passion, and I don't think that necessarily that the conference would simply echo those words."

Others were more radical. "In my view, the bishop is mistaken," Fr Livernois said, describing Bishop Henry's warning to the prime minister as an "inappropriate outburst of emotion".

"Personal salvation is related to an individual's relationship with God," the priest said. "How can a bishop make such an affirmation?"

Back to the document. In fact, it bases its opposition to the recognition of homosexual couples on four arguments: the order of right reason, the biological and anthropological order, the social order and the legal order.

The "order of right reason", discussed in the "Considerations", maintains that "laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex."

Homosexual behaviour can be a private or public phenomenon. The "difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society" is when it is "approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure".

In this case, it "would result in changes to the entire organisation of society, contrary to the common good". Moreover, "legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage".

According to the argumentation of "the biological and anthropological order", the Vatican document states that homosexual unions "are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family, which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition".

"As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood," the document points out.

The argumentation from "the social order" reminds readers that society "owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children."

Lastly, the argument from "the legal order" explains that not granting juridical recognition to homosexual couples is not an act of discrimination, as homosexuals "can always make use of the provisions of law - like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy - to protect their rights in matters of common interest.

"It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society."

Is the document homophobic? We don't think so. The document states that "nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.

"Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however objectively disordered and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity," it stresses.

As noted above, the "political ethics" is new and so will be discussed further. Speaking during a CBC interview Mgr Schonenbach said: "The Church knows that legislators have a big job. They have to exercise prudential judgment in many, many situations.

"And here we are again providing good information. Catholics believe that it is a formed conscience that will truly bring about good works and we feel that these considerations are very rich. It's a very deep document. It can't be just skimmed over. It has to be properly looked at and I think it will add to the debate that is now going on."