Editorial

By Paul Schratz

When the B.C. NDP calls for the removal of a Liberal election candidate because of "disturbingly homophobic comments," it might be chalked up to politics as usual.

However, when the leading opinion shapers in the province echo those sentiments, it's evidence that a sea change has occurred in terms of public support of homosexuality.

It's also evidence that it may not be long before publicly stating elements of our faith becomes not just uncomfortable, but risky.

Liberal Maple Ridge - Mission candidate Marc Dalton, a teacher at Pitt Meadows Secondary School, made remarks about homosexuality in an e-mail 12 years ago.

At the time, the B.C. Teachers Federation was adopting a policy to eliminate "homophobia and heterosexism" in the public school system, and Dalton circulated a petition opposing the BCTF move.

He placed homosexuality in a category with gambling, abortion, adultery, and pornography as issues that "large segments of our society" don't see eye to eye with.

The comments were resurrected during the current election coverage, and a media fire storm ensued. Dalton apologized for any pain he had caused and said he "wouldn't use those words now."

Those words, however, were enough to bring calls for his resignation and accusations of hatred against him in radio programs, letters to the editor, and by newspaper columnists who expressed dismay that anyone could hold such intolerant views, today or back then.

Dalton made it clear, 12 years ago and last week, that he believes in respect for others. He clearly distinguished between homosexuality as a lifestyle he couldn't support, and homosexual people, whom he respects.

No matter. The sheer fact that he didn't embrace all aspects of homosexuality was sufficient to haul him over the coals.

The Dalton incident came within days of a similar uproar at the Miss America contest, when contestant Miss California Carrie Prejean was asked her views on "gay marriage."

In a very respectful manner, Prejean said she couldn't support such unions because of her personal beliefs.

The reaction to her answer made the Dalton incident look like a tea party. The audience booed and contest judge Perez Hilton, known primarily for being a gay blogger, went to the Web and excoriated her with language leaving no question about what constitutes hate speech.

Next, a British MP made an on-camera remark about the possibility of Prejean being murdered. Facetious or not, such remarks, like bomb jokes on an airplane, are distinctly unfunny, and a police investigation resulted.

So this is where we have arrived. A decades-long campaign to end hatred and unreasonable discrimination against homosexuals has morphed past "gay marriage" and into a doctrinaire age that brooks no criticism of homosexual behaviour.

It's enough to give pause, then, when one considers what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the subject. It describes homosexual behaviour as "acts of grave depravity," "intrinsically disordered," and contrary to the natural law."

Of course this isn't about homosexuality, but about the bigger issue of people resisting any form of restraint on their actions.

Almost without fail, the Church's wisdom on contraception, marriage, abortion, contraception, adultery, pornography, and fetal stem-cell research is met with true intolerance.

As the Church faces public humiliation, ostracism, and increasingly legal action, we have a Pope who knows what it's like to suffer criticism for speaking the truth.

From his Regensburg address to his restating the Church's teaching on condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has suffered international scorn. Most recently his remarks on AIDS brought a formal protest from Belgium's ambassador to the Holy See and attacks from France, Germany, and the UN.

The Letter to the Hebrews says we have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. A similar comment could be made about the Holy Father.