Will Premier Pauline Marois tell us how a separate Quebec will work on the world stage?

Is Premier Pauline Marois striking a presidential pose?

Pauline Marois doesn't seem to realize that a separate Quebec is not in her mandate from the voters. So why the jabs against Canada starting with the swearing in ceremony of her cabinet?

by Tom Thorne

As I predicted, newly minted Quebec premier Pauline Marois is already spreading the ever vague doctrine of Quebec separatism. For Madame Marois it is like being in a separatist candy store now she has the top Quebec political job.  Lots of promising sweets to try or so she thinks.

Well I hate to deflate Pauline Marois' separatism sweet tooth.  The candy store contains lots of sour candy too. Most of the sour candy is the economy, health care and underfunded education at all levels and in particular in higher education where she is duty bound to maintain Quebec’s low tuition rates after she pandered to student protesters in the recent election. 

Her first action at the National Assembly was to remove the Canadian Flag from the swearing in ceremony of herself and her cabinet ministers. Yes, only the Quebec flag was present as a tangible symbol that things have changed. It is an act that is more  gauche than a statement for separatism. It demonstrates the mean spirit of separatists.

Despite this silly Canada snub, things have not changed. Quebec remains in Canada and to swear in her cabinet she had to involve the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec who  is a institution not only of Canada and Quebec as a Canadian province but for Pauline Marois a reminder perhaps of how she despises the Monarchy as a symbol of alleged oppression.

Next she will want to remove the Crown from the Royal arms in the National Assembly. We all know too well that Madame Marois is against the Monarchy. However, she has to swallow the Monarchy pill to become premier. The Crown is a strong enough institution to bear and even swear in separatists who are its avowed enemies.

So not including the Canadian Flag at this event does little to change anything except to show clearly the separatist lack of decorum and connection with the full history of Canada and Quebec's institutions. Her action should have been refused by the Lieutenant Governor. We'll see at the upcoming opening of parliament in the National Assembly whether both flags are present during the speech from the throne.

Pauline Marois' brand of separatism seems to rely on the cut here, a jab there, or a mindless comment off the cuff to promote separatism. Eventually, she hopes, we all expire from a thousand insults and her rounds of gaucheness. Actually her actions are seen  as a ho hum moment in Quebec history and a shabby farce for many thoughtful Quebeckers.

If she is so keen a separatist let her lay out her plans for a separate Quebec in detail. Are we to have the Republic of Quebec?  And who will be the head of state to replace the Lieutenant Governor in this brave new separatist world? Will it be some aging Parti Quebecois hack or a distinguished Quebecker whose political credentials will not matter because he or she will have the respect of Quebeckers? Will the new separatist state have a President who is head of state but also elected? Will there be a Prime Minister doing Pauline Marois' current job?

Why not come clean and layout what will replace the Queen's representative since Madame Marois dislikes the current office so much. The truth is if the separatists show how they would organize a separate Quebec into a republic they would have to really show Quebeckers and the rest of Canadians how they would do it. I challenge them to do this so we all know where they propose to take Quebec if they ever win a referendum for separation.

Of course they won't ever lay out this aspect of a truly separated Quebec state because the reality of "separatism" is really a sad political ploy to keep Ottawa off side and to be a province with special powers, not only the powers contained in the unsigned federal Canadian Constitution but the extra stuff they want if we are to keep them in Canada. 

The provincial  Parti Quebecois threatens separatism as a way to get more from Ottawa. It's federal political manifestation, the Bloc Québécois was crushed in the last federal election by the New Democratic Party (NDP) and it had much the same aim as the Parti Quebecois. When asked what they want they always answer vaguely, "whatever is good for Quebec". Quebec voters have been telling them the answer for years. Canada is good for Quebec.

The best electoral response the separatists can muster is about a 30 percent of Quebeckers. Many of these people are Quebec nationalists who in a pinch will not vote for separating Quebec from Canada. So the real hard core separatists amount to very few people in Quebec and if you are  Parti Quebecois premier you pander to them so at party conventions your leadership is not challenged. 

Also among hard core separatists there is very little agreement. Some are moderates that are really Quebec Nationalists. Some are single issue people. Some are simply like former premier Jacque Parizeau sad old men with no hope of seeing a separated Quebec in their lifetime. Lucien Bouchard bounced from federal Conservative politics into the Parti Quebecois premiership seemingly having finally got his separatist mojo in order.  He also fizzled.

My point is all these separatists have yet to make a good argument for Quebeckers to make the break with Canada. They never spell out what the Republic of Quebec will be like and how it will relate to Canada, the USA and the rest of the world. In short there is no plan, no real agenda that is not soft when it comes to the details of separating from the rest of Canada.  In a word separatists are tiresome.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved

Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois can have a fantasy about separatism for a few days.

The Parti Quebecois' worst nightmare.

Quebec election aftermath. Pauline Marois is the new premier of Quebec and independence and separatism becomes a card to play again in hard bargaining with Ottawa.

by Tom Thorne

It was predictable. The Parti Quebecois (PQ) received a minority government mainly because the electorate was tired of the Jean Charest Liberals after three mandates and almost ten years at the helm. The pending scandal hearings may also have played a role, but the numbers of Liberals returned (50) indicates that may be a smaller issue.

The electors, however, wisely tethered out a short rope to Pauline Marois and the PQ at 55 seats in the National Assembly. Any notions of separatism can only now be put on hold with a popular vote is 32.1 percent. PQ members with with  separatist pangs will be frustrated. Hard nosed separatists will be irritated that “mon pays” must remain a dream, yet again. However it won’t stop a Parti Quebecois propaganda war with Ottawa.

Pauline Marois’ new government will have to focus on the economy, education and health care. The PQ will now be faced with the tuition problem and the previous Charest legislation and I predict that despite what Madame Marois said during the election tuitions for post secondary education will rise under her administration if her government lasts long enough. Also she has no mandate to rescind the Charest legislation.

And how tough can she really be with the Federal Government? Marois will, of course, use Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a lightening rod for her pronouncements of getting what Quebec needs, wants or desires. Harper’s stoney angloness will be compared to her latin passion for a lost cause.  Harper, by the way, is equally stoney faced to all Canadian provinces.

What new demands can she make that Quebec provincial governments don’t already have? Quebec governments already have versions of many federal programs and a stronger say in immigration policies than any other Canadian province. The only real appeal separatist have is a nationalistic notion of a French identity in North America and as I keep saying that is well established and protected by the Canadian Constitution. Quebec has yet to sign the Constitution and that signing is overdue.

There is no threat to anyone’s identity. It is really time to settle down as a integral part of Canada and realize that we all have a shared history, shared institutions and our provincial identities within the Canadian federation make us all better.

French speaking Quebeckers, once they get out of Quebec into the rest of Canada realize that this country is much more than a regional nationalism. The same is true for English Canadians visiting Quebec. When Quebeckers accurately examine their history and their considerable contribution to the Canadian fact, they gain a new identity that although still Quebecois is also Canadien. 

Conceive of a Canada without Quebec. I can’t do it. It is an idea that is so unthinkable that it denies our common origins. It is truly time to grow up and recognize Canada as  our first orientation positively seasoned by our regional cultures. 

If Quebec did separate and become a nation state what would be the outcome? Clearly its economic associations with the rest of Canada would remain intact.  Quebec would probably use the Canadian dollar because floating a new currency would be foolhardy. How much independence would they get if they took on the American dollar or worst yet joined the Eurozone.

I really don’t know what is inside the heads of Quebec separatists. They want “sovereignty association” with the rest of Canada. That means getting the benefits with independence. They want a separate state in North America with all the costs associated with that. They are already members of the Francophonie the organization of French speaking countries with special considerations from the Federal Canadian Government that they can be there.

Their Francophonie membership is akin to the Canadian Federal Government allowing English speaking Canadian provinces to be separate members of the British Commonwealth. How much more independence do you need?  A separate Quebec would have to establish and maintain embassies abroad. How different would their stance be on the world stage from Canada’s?

How would the Americans treat an independent Quebec?  How would this affect NAFTA and other free trade provisions Canada has with the United Staes and Mexico? Quebec independence could open up renegotiations on a lot of international agreements.  Quebec separatism is simply a bad idea. 

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved.

A minority government for Quebec. Charest Liberals are the best alternative.

The Quebec election is a mish mash of separatist hopes and dreams contrasted with the social realities of making the province actually work each day.

Although Quebec voters are tired of the Jean Charest government after three terms they are smart enough to know that they can't let anything silly happen on 5 September. That's why they will reward Charest with a minority and if they want more risk they will allow Pauline Marois to form a minority government.

It will be a surprise if there is a majority government  of any stripe especially for Marois' Parti Quebecois. The spoiler is Francois Legault who is the leader of the newly minted and untried Coalition Avenir Quebec party.  Legault of course has Parti Quebecois experience as the ministers of education and health when they were last in power. 

Apples rarely fall too far from their tree, but Francois Legault says he has lost his orientation to Quebec sovereignty and especially separation from Canada. He campaigns on a scandal free Quebec which asks Quebeckers to dump Jean Charest's Liberals for clean government. He is using the White Knight gambit in this election.

The only true federalist party in Quebec is the Liberal Party which means that voters are faced with a fourth term for Jean Charest if they clearly want that option. That may be the problem. Charest has tired out the Quebec electorate by being in power too long and now with scandals lurking waiting to surface it’s hard to trust another round with the Liberals. That's too bad for federalists because it means an opportunity for separatism  ( I never use vague terms like sovereignty) to surface.

Pauline Marois has already stated that she will make life hard for the Government of Canada and particularly her nemesis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper if she becomes the next Premier of Quebec. It's easy to use Stephen Harper as a foil because his government is seen as a negative force for Quebec's separatist ambitions.  That sounds very good to Quebec nationalists and those of a separatist bent but it does little to improve the day to day lives of Quebeckers.

Here is what you get with separatists in power at Quebec City. Certainly more propaganda problems with the Federal Government to make points about the alleged "special needs of Quebec". The only problems is the "needs" are rarely clearly defined and are mostly designed to lead to the ultimate goal which is to separate from the Canadian Federation.

If Pauline Marois brings her seething Parti Quebecois to power, even in a minority, inside the party lurk separatists waiting for a power opportunity . The pressures on Pauline Marois will be immense to advance the separatist cause. She will have to keep the lid on these people. If Marois waffles about separatism, and the separatists don't get their way, the Parti Quebecois will begin its usual internal fragmentation exercise as the moderates fight it out with the hard nosed separatist elements. That is usually a good thing for federalism.

Of course Parti Quebecois infighting always interferes with the real daily needs of the Quebec people. We've seen this scenario before. The moderate versus the hard nosed separatist elements of the Parti Quebecois fighting among themselves. Francois Legault is a result of this infighting. As a former harder nosed separatist, Legault surprises many of his former separatists by his current stance for the his new Coalition Avenir Quebec party. Former Parti Quebecois premier, Bernard Landry recently commented about Legault's turn around from separatism with some surprise.

So where do we stand for the election on 5 September?  A  minority Parti Quebecois government will work with the Coaltion Avenir Quebec members who are elected to perhaps manipulate a "nationalist" coalition into a majority government. We know that a Jean Charest minority will not work with separatists, and since no one will want another election right away separatist ambitions will be somewhat cooled for perhaps two years. 

The Quebec electorate will be the final judge. They will award a minority because they want and need good solid government that will work for their needs such as the economy, education and health care. There is little interest in a separate Quebec state in North America, not now or in the future by the people of Quebec.  

© Copyright, Tom Thorne 2012, All Rights Reserved.

Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois pretends that separatism is still an option for Quebec. Separatism is a bankrupt idea when you examine history.

Trudeau's rigorous presentation against Separatism 

made separatist arguments look small and petty.

Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois blames the monarchy for Quebec ills. The Marois grasp of the historic  place of Quebec in the formation of the Canadian federation is clearly lacking. Her separatist rhetoric glosses over 250 years of combined history.

Even in death former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau makes the hearts of Quebec separatists skip a beat. Pierre Trudeau of course thought that Quebec separatists were bankrupt of any positive ideas but as a Canadian constitutional expert he held this view in a historical context.

Certainly the role of the British monarchy in the formation of Canada was a seminal change for Quebeckers. In 1763 the British Monarchy was part of the package that came with the Treaty of Utrecht. That treaty set the Canadian state in motion, first as a British colony and later as provinces operated by responsible elected governments.

The British Crown was at the core of all these changes and since Canada to this day remains a constitutional monarchy, the Quebec National Assembly is an integral part of this development. They have a Lieutenant Governor, who represents the Queen and who opens parliament like any other Canadian province.

The Treaty of Utrecht ended the war between England and France and one of the side events of that treaty was created by the outcome of the war waged in the St. Lawrence river valley that gave Britain Quebec after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759. The 1763 treaty however provided  the following assurances to Quebeckers.

First they were guaranteed their language and culture. Second they got to keep their system of civil law rather than having to adopt the British Common Law, and lastly they were guaranteed their freedom to be Roman Catholics, which given the British internal wrangles on this front in 17th and 18th Centuries, was a very reasonable concession.

Pierre Trudeau always reminded Quebeckers of their connections to the Treaty of Utrecht that they have always been seen as a special case within the British system. In addition, all these rights were folded into the British North America Act (BNA) in 1867 the act of the British Parliament that created Canada.

When Trudeau brought the BNA home by asking the British Parliament to release it into Canada's parliamentary care, Quebec refused to sign for its repatriation. Trudeau felt that over time Quebec would see the virtue of bringing the BNA home. 

However, the BNA was brought to Canada and that includes all the history that goes back to the Treaty of Utrecht. So the question is how distinct can a Canadian province can be from the rest of Canada and be in the Federation? Quebec is clearly the model. 

When politicians at the federal and provincial level wanted to toy with the provisions of the BNA with wishy washy provisions such as the Meech Lake Accord, Pierre Trudeau, naturally was opposed. All that makes Quebec unique is contained in the BNA which of course is the Canadian Constitution.

Pauline Marois must know that Quebeckers retain their separate civil law, they maintain their language and culture which is enhanced by Canadian bilingualism at the federal level. The fact that they have turned away in droves from the Catholic Church is a choice they have made, and they of course, have the right to make that choice.

So when a separatist attacks the monarchy as a way to generate contempt for the Canadian federation, they should do so realizing that their parliamentary system and their democracy is guarded by the monarchy and that has been the case since they experienced British traditions and compromise that preserved their language, law and if they want it Roman Catholicism. 

Pauline Marois, the current Parti Quebecois leader, of course denies anything that makes her bankrupt notions of separatism look flimsy and without value. She and her separatists resort to Quebec Nationalism which is well known for its flag waving but lack of logic and historical sense about Quebec's association with the British Crown and its parliamentary institutions.

Separatism at its core is an idea without merit. It tends to use emotional appeals and senseless arguments to make its points. It always forgets the provisions of the BNA.  Separatists always rely on the propaganda that Quebec has been held down by the rest of Canada. 

That doesn't mean that in the past there have been problems but now we have grown up in Canada and no one of any consequence can support a separate Quebec because all issues can be dealt with by the democratic institutions we have all developed as Canadians. 

  

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved. 

Jean Charest is right to go to the ballot box. It is put up or shut up time for Quebec protests.

Will this protest translate into Parti Quebecois votes?

Jean Charest: His summer election call has some risk but is largely a ho-hum while Quebec separatism has an opportunity to self-destruct.

by Tom Thorne

Jean Charest, the current premier of Quebec is a guy you either like or you hate at the moment. He really irritates Quebeckers who profess separatism from Canada and he holds the line on the student protests which are allegedly over post secondary tuition hikes. More likely  these street protests mask more trendy separatist political agendas at least for the Parti Quebecois. Lastly Charest calls elections at a moment when everyone would rather be on vacation.

This summer election gambit will probably pay off for Jean Charest.  Think about it. No sensible Quebecker wants separatism from Canada. Tax paying adults think the tuition protests have gone on too long and are over the top while post secondary education is starved for cash.  Quebeckers know that separatists cannot be satisfied by any government even their own Parti Quebecois when it is in power. 


Separatism masquerading as sovereignty is a very fragmented and vacillated concept especially when it is so poorly articulated by the Parti Quebecois leaders. As usual separatism lives off unrest and at this time that unrest is the form without substance student protests.

So Jean Charest has called this election knowing that he will likely get a fourth term, but if he gets a minority government or if the separatists take power as punishment for his alleged construction industry pork barreling that is now wallowing in a series of public hearings  fortunately in summer recess. After the election, the Parti Quebecois wins, they will also have to make Quebec work which will probably include raising post secondary tuition fees at some point. 

Quebec politics is a lot of posturing about unrealistic ideas such as mystical referendums and separatist agendas that most Quebeckers and other Canadians find a useless tiresome exercise. There is no way that in the Canadian federation anyone can really claim that the Francophone culture is under any stress or on the brink of dissolution if Quebec doesn't realize a state in North America. This idea blew its bolt years ago. It is a political echo of times past.

If Pauline Marois, the current Parti Quebecois (PQ) leader says she wants a referendum on separatism she has all but guaranteed a return of the Charest Liberals warts and all for a fourth term. She is already vacillating: referendum maybe if the time is right and the separatists can win. She also attacks the federal government with a lot of anti-Harper rhetoric.


Marois sides with the student protesters because Charest does not. She has no original ideas.  Charest has picked this election fight knowing the mood of the electorate which is largely something like, "hold your nose and vote Liberal to maintain some sense of order in Quebec" or "better the devil you know than suffer the bankrupt waffling of the Parti Quebecois".

For all these reasons I am climbing out on a limb and calling for a fourth Charest win in September. The fuzzy alternatives to his government are defined only by their abstractness. The amorphous student protests have a single issue focus that a democratically elected parliament has ruled on. Tuition fees will rise and will remain the lowest tuitions in all of Canada into the bargain.

The  Quebec student movement is more social media induced form without substance protest. It has no focus except the protests themselves and until its leaders decide to really test their public appeal by running for the Parti Quebecois, it is a non democratic force that no government can give into. Even the Parti Quebecois in power could not afford to give in to  the rule of the streets.

When student protest  leader Leo Bureau-Blouin declared as a candidate for the Parti Quebecois he got my respect as someone who offers himself to the democratic process to advance his views rather than protest in the streets. If he wins his riding that will speak for democracy, if he looses then his ideas will have been rejected. Of course, since he has joined himself to a separatist party he may be defeated on that issue alone.

On the other hand, Gabriel Nadeau Dubois of the Coalition large de l'association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante, popularly known as CLASSE, has decided to stay out of any endorsement of any political party. He is still turning protesters out into the streets after the election call. I have a feeling that he is hoping that the Parti Quebecois forms the next government, but he hasn't the political integrity to say that or to run for public office. And as I said before the PQ will then have to govern if they are elected, so CLASSE will not gain much from a Pauline Marois Parti Quebecois government.

Nadeau Dubois may find that when the PQ gets into government they will be as intransigent over tuition fees as Jean Charest has been. There is always a sobering of political rhetoric once the financial books have been seen by an incoming PQ government.

Two nights ago Quebec streets were again filled with protestors. Well they need to get out and vote for the Parti Quebecois that says they will hold the line on tuition. They will hold the line on tuition and other demands of the protestors because they want their votes for the real agenda which is Quebec separatism. It is all so bankrupt and transparent.

All these young people may think its cool to use social media to gather in the streets but are they all so sure they want to give their votes to a separatist party to get at the Charest Liberals?  Make sure protestors that you are on the voter's list so you can help make your points through the democratic process.

If Jean Charest wins the election and does so with a majority the Quebec people will have spoken and the protests should fade away if the protesters are democrats. If the protests continue with a majority then a lot of protestors failed to learn any lesson about the democratic process. Let's see how it all shakes out this September.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved. 

Bill 13: The Accepting Schools Act: Some implementation ideas.

Bill 13: The Accepting Schools Act. The implementation stage. Some experiences are offered to guide the schools.

by Tom Thorne

About a month ago I made some comments about the Bill 13: The Accepting Schools Act and how I thought it was more political correctness whose main purpose would be the social engineering of the Ontario school system. 

Yesterday we had a story in our local paper about a transgendered boy who was voted by the student body of a high school  to be Prom Queen at their graduation dance. I always respect the democracy of a secret ballot but these student voters have established that “Queen” is now a genderless word. 

This story is a round of potential change for our small, usually conservative, Eastern Ontario city. There were other candidates for the role of Prom Queen and they all identified with the female gender. I don’t know whether someone ran for Prom Queen who appears to be male, ( the winner was dressed as a girl) but that would have been OK too as these students neuter the English language by their politically correct act.

This process was of course endorsed by the school administration, who are now subject to the more stringent aspects of The Accepting Schools Act. What I find unnerving about this situation is the very public displays of sexual orientation. It smacks of an agenda or the effects of politically correct propaganda on our society. If it served some useful purpose or promoted some talent of some kind I could see it. Unfortunately this act is more form than substance. It looks good and I’m sure bullying will now evaporate as a result.

There has to be some people in that school who find this exercise in social engineering troublesome. However, they are silenced. I am not silent about this. Surely a Prom Queen is female and a Prom King, if we must have equity and this kind of beauty pageant  ethos in our schools, is male? If we neutered the language to Prom First Choice Person or Prom Royal Person then we would certainly get no flack from me even if it does take the guts out of the language. But there must be females who find offense as Queen is claimed by all genders or those who claim transgender.

However, the real reason for calling this boy a Prom Queen is to make the point that he can choose to be a Queen or a King or simply a Royal Person. He chose to run for Prom Queen and that is to make a statement and promote a point of view.

**************

Jump back in time with me to my first job after graduating from Ryerson University. I was hired as a promotions officer by the professional Theatre Toronto troupe for their 1969 season at the Royal Alexandra Theatre. This theatre company came together for the Winter-Spring and was made up of notables from the London West End and our own Stratford Shakespearean Festival.

Very quickly a group of technical people arrived to start work on our five productions. Some were Canadian and others were imported from London  because of their skills. One such person was a transgendered person who some days would be Clarissa and on other days would be Clarence.

Clarence-Clarissa was a skillful costumer. He/she could take some tacky cheap fabric or burlap and transform it into glorious brocades and patterned cloth that he/she built into majestic 17th Century and mediaeval costumes. He/she was simply brilliant and very cost effective to the production’s bottom line. 

When Clarisa was present we were treated to an acid witted patter that would have made Mae West blush. When Clarence appeared, usually every other day or so, we had a completely different personality who was equally as witty as Clarisa but in a less camp way commenting in detail about the complete lack of decent restaurants in Toronto at that time or how closeted the gay scene was in the 1960’s. 

I thought he/she’s talents were worthy of a feature story and so I went to the Toronto Telegram (now defunct) to get a story done. They wanted to do it but I had a dilemma who should be interviewed Clarisa or Clarence. My personal choice was Clarence who although over the top, was much more measured than Clarissa.

The writer of the story for the Telegram followed this dual personality transgendered talent for several days buying fabric, with Clarissa, painting brocades on burlap with Clarence and watching costume calls as these brilliant costumes were tried out on actors and on set by either Clarissa or Clarence. Everyone in the company treated each personality with equity and respect. 

The writer of the feature piece did his story and what is interesting is he focused not on the over the top flamboyance of Clarissa / Clarence but on the incredible quality of his/her’s work. The telegram chose to use only photos of Clarence who was the more in the background personality of the two as he said “to let the work show rather than the hyperactive diva who created it.”

The professional side of Clarissa understood the Telegram’s writer’s choice with this comment: “Oh Dahlings, Toronto, bless its little backwoods heart, is not ready for Clarissa yet...dear Clarence was the right choice for those pictures...he’s such a dear boy.”

I genuinely liked both of these incredibly talented sides of one person. We laughed continually and we were better for it.  Some years later when on business in London for TVOntario I had lunch with this wonderful dual personality remembering Theatre Toronto and catching up on Clarissa/Clarence’s budding feature film work. I must say when Clarissa appeared for lunch it made for a much more entertaining time than the more laid back Clarence. 

I wonder whether the young Prom Queen has the right stuff to really be a trouble free transgendered person and develop into a talented respected professional like Clarissa/Clarence? That’s where the rubber hits the road. Clarissa/Clarence by the way was not British. He/she came from a tiny town in Nova Scotia and I don’t think he/she was ever a Prom Queen although he/she would find it more amusing than making a politically correct statement about it.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved.

The Hanoski case is only a symptom of a greater ill.

Nailing a protest to the door of the Church. Let the Reformation begin.

I have been doing a lot of thinking and that may be risky. For months I have been writing in this blog about the Hanoski case. This particular example is close to me as a Holy Rosary Parish member here in Belleville, Ontario.  I worked alongside Father Paul Hamilton before his fall instructing people who wanted to join the Catholic Church. I quit that work with his removal and became a Reformist Catholic at that moment.  

I also knew Joe Hanoski quite well and I had no idea that anything was happening as he alleges in his civil court action.  I have experienced a betrayal that has placed me on an unpleasant but necessary track to dig out the truth specifically in the Hanoski case but generally to begin the process of opening up the Church to explore the origins of what has become a very deep malaise that affects the credibility of its clerics. 

When the alleged sexual peccadilloes of the priesthood come to light in your parish and the chronic silence of the Church’s diocese hierarchy goes on for nine years, something has to break on the truth and hopefully reconciliation front if the principles of Christ are to be upheld and made useful to people’s lives. This top down male dominated system appears to have  no idea about how they are going to solve this crisis. They are scratching at air and frozen by tradition. Their only answer is silence. Perhaps their embarrassment is so deep that they cannot respond adequately anymore?

All we get this stale status quo response that really doesn’t come close to providing the kind of leadership that is needed to make a difference on this file throughout the Catholic Church.  Nothing changes. The status quo is maintained even when evidence that it is not working piles up. It is like a club with closed doors. Priests and their bishops cannot it seems open up their institution to any change to make a difference. It’s a closed shop to the laity and it is without merit. 

In my experience, priests often find it very difficult to lead sexless lives. Many of them need to be married and or be allowed closeness with other humans and to be able to do so without guilt. Celibacy is a nutty idea with mediaeval origins that are simply passé. It certainly has no merit if the outcome is even a few strange twisted men playing out adolescent sexual fantasies with vulnerable people in their charge. It is equally twisted if it turns these men inwards.

Of course there is a lot of denial that celibacy has anything to do with this crisis. I hear this argument all the time from the church hierarchy combined with the other specious argument that “other churches with married clergy have the same problem.” Spreading the blame to other churches or the Boy Scouts, in recent memory, doesn’t face up to the question in a Catholic context and the male oriented them and us lifestyle forced on priests. 

I would say that the Catholic Church has the biggest problem concerning sexual abuse  because it is inherent in how the priesthood is structured. It is rife and the way to combat it is currently totally inadequate. It may be that this closed shop is now resistant to any useful change because the ingrained forms remains more important than the substance of Christianity. 

How good is the screening of priest candidates who enter the seminary? The argument that they must be celibate or cannot be homosexual by Vatican decree, falls flat in practice. The questions, the inner turmoils of balancing a call by God with your sexual orientation is an automatic conflict for a number of candidates if you dig deep enough. 

Imagine a system where you are trying to attract candidates who say they have a call to the priesthood and God's service and then they are told  that they have to reconcile that call with a future sexuality that cannot be expressed to get into the seminary. They put their sexuality on hold or drop away knowing they can't measure up. Or they consider it a private matter that they must work out and simply go through the process and perhaps at considerable angst all while doing the tough job it is in a parish while also counseling others with their problems. 

Or they think privately that they can work it out at some point. Or they suppress their sexuality squeezing it into a box called celibacy that is surrounded by an ethos of holiness so it doesn’t jump out of the box. This system does not work for some priests. They crack under the pressures and when that happens they are sent off to Church operated rehabilitation centres and always placed on “administrative leave”.  A few descend into pederasty and all the hell that creates for the victim.

In addition, in Western Europe and North America the priest population is aging. That means replacement for priests who retire is not happening. So the second problem the church has is keeping churches and services open for the faithful. The management of this problem combined with the poor optics of the sexual scandals equals fewer and fewer men are willing to commit to the celibate life of the Catholic priesthood or to countless hours of work in clustered parishes. 

The Church is now undergoing another somewhat quiet Reformation. For a long time this action has been in the context of the status quo, as Catholics try hard to make their Church work in contemporary times. In my view the Reformation stage we are now entering is first much more democratic than the present male oriented top down hierarchies would like to see. That change will be resisted by the existing system.

Finally, if the Vatican Church hierarchies do not democratize and open up the discussion of the current no discussion topics the Reformation will develop into fragments which is much in keeping with the current socio-technology aspects of contemporary life. Large structures fragment under the stresses of a high technology knowledge-based culture. These fragments will be seen initially as Protestants and perhaps they will be condemned heretics and  excommunicated by the old order of the Church. That is the sociology of top down organizations and dictatorships.

The new catholic fragments will allow priests to marry. They will begin the process of bringing women into a fuller role probably first as deacons. Some fragments will see no difference between men and women an will ordain both sexes. Marriage and the priesthood will be a clear option. Some will fast track deacons to the priesthood. These fragments will take over vacant church buildings now downsized by the current church after the shortage of male priests forced more and more “clusterings” to maintain the status quo. It will be hard on everyone but the direction will be following the basic Love message of Christ and that is what is most important. 

One final point: The fragmenting of hierarchies does not automatically mean a descent into anarchy although if you are used to the power of a hierarchy or like to be always told how to think there may be moments of high anxiety. Try prayer. The Holy Spirit is an action-oriented doer of deeds.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved.