Author: Pete Vere

John Pacheco and Suzanne Fortin from Catholic Legate just sent me an update about the recent march on parliament hill to defend traditional marriage against the Canadian judiciacracy. (There were about 10,000 protesters on our side, and about a half-dozen counter-protesters on the other side.) As you can from the following slide-show, the Chinese-Canadians showed up in full force. Basically, anyone in a red shirt is a Chinese Christian.

This is great political news since the Chinese are one of the largest and most disciplined politically-active ethnic minority groups in Canada, and traditionally they have backed the Liberal Party (which is pushing through the gay marriage issue.) The Chinese Christians made a pretty blunt statement at the rally, namely, they will switch their political allegiance and vote against the Liberals if the latter attempt to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. Reportedly, even Paul Martin (Liberal-Leader-and-Prime-Minister-in-waiting) became nervous by the presence of what’s being called the tail of the political dragon.

Speaking to Pacheco (who was one of the organizers) on Friday evening, I know he was both stunned and grateful by how large and how disciplined the Chinese presence was. Here’s the opening paragraphs of the news report he and Suzanne Fortin sent me:

They came by the thousands. On buses, on foot, in their cars and in their vans. They came from Montreal and Toronto, mostly. Driving to the Supreme Court where participants for National Marriage Day gathered, we saw them in their buses and on the street corners with their signs and banners boldly affirming traditional marriage. As my family and friends approached the grounds, you could not miss the seas of red in front of the Supreme Court. Organized. Efficient. Disciplined. Numerous.

And Chinese.

Some were Baptist. Some were Pentecostal. Some were non-denominational. It didn’t matter here, though. They arrived to fight a war together as Christians, and they came prepared. All attired in bold red T-shirts with the image of a man and woman emblazoned on them, they were sending a message to Canada and its politicians: don’t mess with marriage.

They organized themselves into what could only be described as military columns. Behind wide, red banners affirming traditional marriage, hundreds of Chinese Christians fell into formation. Each formation had a commander who telecommunicated with their field general. They moved only on his command. And when the command was given to begin the March to Parliament Hill, they marched – with precision and purpose. In total, I think they may have accounted for at least 40% of the entire crowd. It didn’t matter, though. The rest of us knew leadership when we saw it, and we simply fell into line and marched with them.

It feels great to be back at Catholic Light after holding down the fort at Envoy Encore last week while the rest of my Encore blogmates were away. That being said, I want to weigh in on the current St. Blog debate over husbands, wives and mutual submission to one another in marriage. As I mentioned to some of you, my thoughts on this subject were expressed in an article I co-authored with my friend Jacqueline Rapp, who is also a parent and a lay canonist. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

We are all familiar with St. Paul’s following injunction: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” (Eph 5: 22-24.) In the past, this scriptural passage has unfortunately been used to excuse everything from domestic violence to the subjection of women within the institution of marriage.

Yet within the context of St. Paul’s writings, it touches upon the matrimonial theology of partnership, mutual welfare of the spouses, and communion of life and love. The verse prefacing this passage is clear; “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph. 5: 21.) As is the passage that comes afterward: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her […] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church…” (Eph. 5: 25, 28-29.)

In short, the marital partnership is implicit in St. Paul’s injunction that husbands and wives be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Similarly, communion of life and love is implied within this passage. St. Paul teaches that a husband’s love to which a wife subjects herself should be a self-sacrificing reflection of how Christ loves the Church. For just as Christ laid down His life for the Church out of a deep love for us, so too should a husband lay down his life for his wife if love requires it. Obviously, such a tremendous love rules out domestic violence, belittling and other forms of marital abuse. For one should never abuse and belittle one’s own flesh.

Is it just me, or is Mark Steyn’s comments on the whole Episcopal ratification of Gene Robinson just the absolutely best piece that has been written on this whole fiasco? (Thanks to the web-elves at CANN for tipping me off.) Here’s a few choice comments:

So now the most celebrated symbol of Granite State manhood is the Great Gay Face, the Reverend Gene Robinson. And, although I’m feeling a little gayed out these days, since folks insist on pressing me, let me say a couple of things about the Episcopal Church’s and the Anglican Communion’s first gay bishop. And by gay, I don’t mean one of those fainthearted CofE “celibate gays” like poor doomed Jeffrey John. Personally, I thought the much touted celibacy of Canon John and his friend had a whiff of the old “but I didn’t inhale” about it: as my colleague Barbara Amiel summarised Clinton’s defence in the Monica business, “But I didn’t impale.”

By contrast, Canon Robinson, a proudly “practising” gay, decided to shoot for the whole enchilada – daring the dithering nellies of his Church to take not one small tentative first step but a giant leap for mankind. He had the courage of his concupiscence, and he has been rewarded for it.