I was astonished that the article by Donald Hill (The Interim, May 2000), on whether or not homosexuals were born gay, was allowed to be published. Mr. Hill's article was filled with errors. To mention just one: Mr. Hill's statement that pedophilia is three times as likely to occur in the homosexual population as in the heterosexual population is wrong. According to recent government stats, 95 per cent of all pedophiles have been heterosexual white males.

I am not going to waste my breath trying to persuade The Interim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I will, however, ask that you examine the articles submitted to you for grammatical AND factual errors, for everyone's sake.

Please read the following three statements: 1. Every individual human being is of immeasurable worth, made in the divine image of God, and an object of His infinite love. 2. It is wrong to mistreat anyone or to promote the mistreatment of anyone. Whatever your views on sexual morality, it is wrong for any person to be intimidated, harassed, insulted, beaten, humiliated, or murdered. 3. For any discussion to be fruitful, those who engage in it must be prepared to listen carefully and with respect, as well as be listened to. (I refuse to presume that nothing can be learned from someone whose experience or opinion is different than mine.)

If you agree with these three points (any Christian would have a hard time refuting any of them) and still disagree with me that homosexuality is a sin, I ask you this: Please, please, write an article or let me) urging your readers to treat all people, unborn, straight, gay, black, white, etc., with respect. State that you are firmly against the abuse, harassment, violence and murder of all people (including gays and lesbians). Remind your readers that, our Saviour's only comment on human relationships was to call us to never judge, but only to love. Too many people use the Bible as proof that violence against homosexuals is justified, or that their picketing of a murdered young gay man's funeral is okay. We must truly love one another if we are to fulfil God's wishes; we must not judge one another, for fear of being judged ourselves.

The violence must end. Please be a part of the solution, and not the problem. Thanks for your time, and God bless.

Brian Caldwell
Sarnia, Ont.

World March is a betrayal

I am extremely disappointed and feel our unborn brothers and sisters have been betrayed by certain segments of the Catholic community when they erred in supporting the international March of Women. We cannot support or endorse part of an organization or an activity which in any way promotes actions which are contrary to the Laws of God and the teachings of our Church. We endorse it all or none. This is affirmed by our Holy Father's refusal to support UNICEF despite their many positive world efforts.

The sad reality is we Catholics have contributed to the March of Women and their goals, which include abortion and same-sex marriages. Our naive belief that these are excluded from our endorsements is nothing less than a betrayal of women, born or unborn. No fancy footwork will change this fact and we will hear it shouted from the rooftops. We in the pro-life movement have also been betrayed, but that betrayal is just one of our crosses as we continue in our struggles for God's little ones.

A much more unacceptable and erroneous categorization came later with the comments of Bishop John Sherlock of London, who knows better. Incidentally, your Excellency, our agenda and our negative judgements are only our feeble efforts to observe the Fifth Commandment despite questionable support. I would rather be in the ghetto fighting for the unborn than on a pedestal compromising with their enemies.

Now I have an added dilemma: Do I support the Bishop's annual collection, or does some of this money go to support organizations who in part act or promote actions contrary to Catholic teaching?

Chuck Roche
President, Tillsonburg Right to Life
Tillsonburg, Ont.

Bishop Sherlock

Re: Bishop John Sherlock's criticism of the pro-life movement's opposition to the World March of Women. The Catholic support of the International March of Women according to him makes perfect sense in the light of the Church's teachings. But nowhere in the social teaching of the Church are we encouraged or commanded to work together with another group, which promotes human death through abortion.

The bishop writes, "that if the pro-life had their way, we all would be living in a ghetto." God's teaching clearly says that abortion is the murder of a most innocent and unborn human being. That truth must be preached by the Church "both inside and outside of season," and in an unambiguous way. That ghetto must not be blamed on the pro-life people. Converts must be taught this truth, and be ready to believe it. If the March of Women are not ready to believe in the teaching of God on abortion, then they must be blamed for the ghetto.

The Bishop also said this: "Pro-life groups have their own particular agenda" - he fails to say what that agenda is - "and unless the whole Church follows them, they sit in negative judgement." Again the Bishop does not say on what matters. In my opinion the pro-life groups are very positive and unambiguous in their work against abortion. In my opinion the Bishop has made two bad and unfair accusations against our wonderful pro-life groups. Why did he not have the courage to make the same accusations against Cardinal A. Ambrozic and Bishop A. Tonnos? To them he only said in mild and soft words: "That he respects them for their decisions." Why two different standards here?

Personally I think that Bishop John Sherlock should apologize to the pro-life groups for his remarks about them. May God bless us all in working unambiguously for the Culture of Life, where ever that may be.

Rev. Hubert Dopp
Pastor, St. Michael's Church
Dunnville, Ont.

March hypocrisy

I would like to comment on the decision of the Canadian Bishops and other Catholic groups to support the International World March of Women 2000. Unfortunately, the majority of the groups involved are not fully interested in ending poverty and violence against women. If they were, they would vigorously petition western governments to end the huge sums spent on depopulating the Third World by programs promoting abortion, sterilization, contraceptive drugs and devices, and pornographic sex education. These savings could provide funds for the eradication of poverty and to promote the health and education of women.

Sadly, the dying industrial west, fearing the loss of geopolitical power, would be difficult to influence. Their failure to stand up against the ultimate in violence, the capital punishment of innocent unborn female and male children, undermines their own aim. Thus for Catholic groups to support this World March gives a very mixed message as to the Church's position on these key moral issues. This was the reason that the Church eventually withdrew its UNICEF funding.

Hopefully, it might not be too late for Catholic groups to set up their own programs. These could include vigorously challenging politicians to redirect population control funds, and to bring in laws protecting the unborn.

Terry Snyder
Windsor, Ont.

Legitimate goals

The World March of Women is an international event designed to bring attention to injustice towards women. Injustice is an issue that transcends gender. However, women are more frequently the primary victims of injustice. Women the world over are invited to march for the eradication of violence and poverty. Given the multiplicity of cultures and situations worldwide, there are a broad scope of issues raised among the various groups participating in the March. The common thread is poverty and violence.

Some particular manifestations of poverty and violence were specified. In Mozambique, women are asking for protection under family law. In Brazil, women are protesting economic models that exclude the poor, and the assassination of 82 women between January and June 1999. Hong Kong women are making a declaration against sex trafficking, while women in the Philippines are also protesting sex trafficking and economic forces that drive women to prostitution. Other issues identified are rape as an instrument of war, genital mutilation, forced abortion, and forced sterilization. These are all issues addressed in Catholic social teaching and should be the concern of all the Catholic faithful.

Development and Peace is participating in this march on two levels. They are taking part in the March here in Canada, and monetary support has been extended to women's organizations in Third World Countries for organization and communication costs connected to the March.

The four Catholic groups involved in the March, in their joint statement of clarification, restate an important fundamental aspect of the March. This is not a monolithic group, but a loose organization of many diverse groups, cooperating in the interest of societal transformation. March organizers understand that not every group's vision or demands fit with all others.' Disagreements and differences, though regrettable, are inevitable. The Catholic groups have made it clear that they do not support abortion. Their money was not directed to those who do. This is known and accepted among the organizers. Support of the general objectives does not imply support of each and every demand.

The tempest over the March raises some questions. Are we to remain silent in the face of forced abortion, sex trade in women and girls, grinding poverty, deprivation of all sorts? Can we work cooperatively within a diverse group, or must we have complete agreement with our partners before we do God's work along with them? Who sounded the alarm on the March and why? Are there some who want to keep women silent, and are willing to use pious arguments to do so? Can the Catholic faithful understand the complexities of this world and appreciate a nuanced situation? Or are the Catholic faithful easily confused and in need of protection from a world that is too big and too challenging for their taste?

Mary Lozowsky
Brampton, Ont.

Death penalty

Re The Interim's coverage of Stockwell Day. Compared to all other candidates, reading your articles, he seemed to be the most pro-life and pro-family, but just today I was really shocked to find out he is pro-capital punishment too! You guys never mentioned this in The Interim! How much credibility can his pro-life statements have, if he is at the same time pro-death penalty?

Mrs. Alessandra Racco
Bolton, Ont.

Not pro-life

In the last few issues of The Interim, I have noticed a significant amount of coverage of the Canadian Alliance Party and the apparent pro-life and pro-family values of many of its members. For example, in the June issue, David Curtin's analysis asserted that Manning and Day are "promising" on issues of life and family, while Tim Bloedow's column stated that the Canadian Alliance Party has "a noticeably larger number of vocal pro-life politicians."

I think that it is a dangerous myth to suggest that anyone who supports this political party could possibly be called "pro-life." To be pro-life, a politician would want to create an environment that supports the common good of all of its citizens, especially the disadvantaged, rather than support tax cuts to its wealthiest citizens. Unfortunately, this political party, like its Reform predecessor, favours a limited role for government in protecting the common good of society. Also, many members of this party state publicly that they are opposed to abortion and euthanasia, but in favour of capital punishment. Many are opposed to legislation to control guns. How can these individuals possibly be called pro-life in a holistic sense?

Like all of Canada's major political parties, the Reform-Alliance contains many contradictions. As Canadians of conscience, it is difficult to support any of the major parties. This points to the need for electoral reform, in which some of our MPs would be elected by popular support. This would allow people to vote for small-party candidates and not feel that their vote has been wasted. In this system, used in many European countries, some MPs are elected based on the percentage of their popular vote. Some small-party candidates would be elected even though they did not have enough votes in one riding.

If you want true advocates for life in Parliament, this type of electoral reform would be helpful. Don't be taken in by the polished rhetoric of the Reform-Alliance Party, which is obviously an example of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Frank Fohr
Niagara Falls, Ont.

Get involved

There has been much discussion, accompanied by a lot of optimism, that the new Canadian Alliance Party holds the best chance for replacing the corrupt, dictatorial, and totalitarian regime of the present Liberal Government, aided and abetted by the equally corrupt Bloc/NDP/Red Tory Parties. The imperative to get the Liberals out of power has never been more pressing. Another four years and democracy will become a thought in history - if it is not already!

If the moral majority are to find a return to those cherished values and standards, which served us so well and were taken for granted until they were taken away, then this moral majority has to get involved. What do I mean by "getting involved?" I mean that they not only have to take out a membership in this new party, they have to attend constituency meetings, especially candidate selection meetings. Getting involved also means encouraging family, friends, neighbours, workmates, customers, etc., to also join and get involved. Most riding associations, believe it or not, are supported and run by as few as 25 to 30 people - and these people are the ones who make all the decisions about party policy, who will run as the candidate, and who goes to national conventions.

So getting involved means that to influence party policy and therefore the issues that effect your life and your family life, you had better be there. Attend every meeting and ask the hard questions. Where does the executive and the potential candidates stand on the critical issues? - abortion, euthanasia, the morning-after pill, homosexual behaviour and its privileged status, etc. If the answers are not what you want to hear, you have the option to find and support an alternative candidate. You might even be the candidate yourself. (With all those family, friends, and neighbours that you enrolled, you'd probably win!)

Most people, I believe, think that the political system in their country is very complex and hard to fathom. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's simplicity itself. If you have the numbers, i.e., support, you win the battle. That's politics, pure and simple. But, as G.K. Chesterton wrote, you have to fight the battle, before the battle is over. Let's get involved and restore our wonderful heritage. Let us bring God back into our land and our lives. The Canadian Alliance appears to offer the only possibility of this happening - but only if YOU get involved.

Paul J. Morgan
Lakefield, Ont.

Harris v. teachers

So Frank Kennedy (The Interim, June 2000) had a dream: Mike Harris defeated in the next election by loony union leader Sid Ryan. Dream on. The reason?! Ontarians revolted because the leftist teachers unions (the same which generously fund pro-abortion causes) threaten to leave a socialist education paradise in Ontario and head for capitalist U.S.A.

Last night, after reading Mr. Kennedy's story, I had a dream too. Similar beginning, totally different ending. It started like this. Once I closed my eyes, I saw the headline: "Ontario teachers want to leave for U.S.A. to compete in a free market." With joy and with still closed eyes, I run to the street to join thousands others with one desire: to help teachers pack their bags.

I remember standing later on the train platform waving cheerfully good-bye and shouting bon voyage. Then we got organized for the quickly called election, which brought a massive Mike victory and his third term in office. The first item on new Mike agenda, promptly passed through the Ontario Parliament, was a bill establishing charter schools. Hello education, good-bye indoctrination! Gone socialist, politically-correct agendas like teaching our kids how great it is for Suzie to have two mommies and for Johnny to have two daddies. Now our kids are learning real family values, along with math, science, and reading.