Julian Fantino and Tom Mulcair renounce their Catholic faith

- February 11th, 2013

Well, that’s the conclusion I’m coming to based on both men lashing out over a Christian group that had stated that homosexuality is a sin.

The furor started when Canadian Press reported that Christian Crossroads, an evangelical Christian group that has received funding for aid projects since 1999, also declares homosexuality a sin. That report led Fantino to distance himself from the group his department had defended earlier. The report’s publication also saw Crossroads take down that part of its website.

Julian fantino tweet

Of course that’s not good enough for NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

“It’s shocking to hear Minister Fantino defending the indefensible, standing up today and defending a group that on its website is attacking something that’s recognized and protected by Canadian law,” Mulcair said after question period.

“It goes against Canadian values. It goes against Canadian law. And he can’t defend that.”

Mulcair went on….

“We don’t understand how the Conservatives can … subsidize a group in Uganda whose views are identical to those of the Ugandan government,” Mulcair said.

Now I want to point out that Mulcair and Fantino are both reportedly Catholic. In fact, Mulcair gets quite uppity when someone questions his faith. So let me just quote from the Vatican website emphasis added.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

So at this point I expect Fantino to halt all funding to Catholic charities that are feeding the hungry, providing hospitals and so on. I also expect Mulcair to denounce the Catholic Church and ask how any Canadian can defend it.

But that won’t happen will it?

In fact Fantino’s office funds plenty of Catholic charities and Mulcair’s NDP have spoken repeatedly about funding cuts to Catholic Development and Peace, the official aid agency of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops – who it might be noted do regard homosexuality as a sin.

So is this about homosexuality or is this about beating up religious charities based on whether they are perceived as “progressive” or “conservative?” Evangelical charities would wrongly be perceived as all being “conservative” and Catholic charities – because like most Catholic politicians (Fantino, Mulcair etc.) they apparently don’t believe what their Church teaches – are perceived as “progressive.”

What is disturbing here is the attempt to enforce a uniformity of views on Canadians if they want to engage with the government. Personally I don’t like church groups of any kind taking government money because it corrupts the church. Yet not all Canadians support that view and some want long standing religious charities to work with government, something that has gone on for decades inside this country and through our foreign aid.

Now for cheap political points, Mulcair and Fantino have decided that this must change. Either Christian churches give up all government partnerships or they give up their traditional teaching. That may sound extreme but that is the natural extension of the positions taken by Fantino and Mulcair.

These two, aided by Canadian Press, have started a new inquisition.

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

7 comments

  1. Jay Linton says:

    I think the problem with this analysis is the presumption that one must renounce the actions of an entire organization on the basis of some of it’s actions. Citing the ascientific bigotry of the Vatican is no basis on which to demand the renounciation of Catholicism, and more than condemning a particular policy of a particular party is grounds for leaving the party.

    Mr. Lilley asks the question, “Is this about homosexuality or ….”

    Here’s the answer: It’s about homosexuality.

  2. Graham says:

    “Inquisition.” Will there be torture, then?

  3. Peter McCoy says:

    “We don’t understand how the Conservatives can … subsidize a group in Uganda whose views are identical to those of the Ugandan government”.

    Is ‘morality’ to difficult for them to understand? If Mulcair and Fantino attended their respective churches once in awhile, maybe they would understand.

    Maybe funding should be stopped for all religious groups. That would give the church groups the freedom to publically promote a political party. And we all know which way the Christian (& Catholic) groups would lean.

  4. Stephen Smith says:

    Perhaps we should extend all the lines or articles of faith that keep one a ‘good catholic’ By that rule any married couple should be having a child every, well lets be generous and say 2 years, if not you must be practicing some form of birth control, which is not allowed.

    BTW the reference to homosexuality in the bible is vague and said by Paul, the translation is still in doubt. Don’t forget God killed, yes killed, Onan for not having sex with his sister in law. (Genesis 38:3-10) The order Racehl and Leah to have sex with their father.

    Its all crazy contradictory nonsense.

    Abandoning ones religous doctrine does not mean abandoniong God.

  5. Laura V says:

    Given the policies of the NDP party, Mulcair renounced his Catholic faith a long time ago.

  6. James Di Fiore says:

    Brian,

    The church itself is a prejudicial organization. Just because someone declares their belief is in the bible, doesn’t make that belief legit. Hiding behind a bible verse is a tactic used to excuse overt discrimination.

  7. Sean says:

    Stephen Smith, you’re wrong about Genesis 38. Onan did have sex with his sister-in-law and then God killed him.God never ordered Leah and Rachel to have sex with their father. Utterly ridiculous.

    Liars need to have light shone on them. You’ll be comforted to know that they don’t like the light and so they cower. The more Mulcair is pressured, the more he’ll cower. I would hope however that the Catholic Church will enforce the directive from the Pope not to give Holy Communion to pro-abortion policitians like Mulcair.

Comments are closed.