Articles | Catholic Conscience †

Points to Ponder: BC’s 2026 snap election

At a moment of internal turmoil amongst its opponents, B.C.’s governing party has called a snap election. Reasons sufficient to credibly support an early call are sadly lacking, along with adequate information to support voters in weighing voting decisions.

Rather than respecting the October 2028 date contemplated by the province’s fixed-election laws, the government has set the election for October 24, 2026 – a full two years early. At the time it called the election, the governing party’s website provided neither any complete platform statement nor any current statement of its guiding principles. Voters were simply left to shift for themselves, opposing parties left to scramble to support responsible decision-making.

Catholic Conscience was able to pull together a copy of the party’s constitution, dated 2021; a single-page summary of policy highlights entitled “An Action Plan for You – Platform Highlights”, and the provincial budget the party prepared for 2026.

The following list of issues that voters may wish to consider in discerning their votes include the following, which was provided to Catholic Conscience by other Catholic sources. Some involve decisions the current government has already made; others are still being debated, challenged, or reconsidered.

This list is intended as a starting point only, and not as a complete report of the current government’s record.

We hope to expand upon and improve it, but given the very short time allotted to us, we are sharing it as is.

In considering the following, voters might ask themselves:

Who is likely to benefit from from an early election call at at time when the governing party’s opponents are in a state of disorganization? Do the voters or the public benefit?
Who might be hurt by such election calls? How might the vulnerable or marginalized among us fare? Is it possible to tell how others might fare when credible and comprehensive policy statements have not been shared?

Please inform yourself conscientiously, pray devoutly, and vote faithfully.

Medical assistance in dying: oversight and safeguards

Investigations by The B.C. Catholic and Canadian Catholic News found thousands of errors and reporting problems in B.C.'s medical assistance in dying (MAiD) records for 2023 and 2024. The findings raise questions about how closely the province monitors the system and whether problems are properly followed up. The reported errors do not necessarily mean assisted deaths were unlawful.

More recent Catholic reporting has also examined how much physicians are paid for providing MAiD.

Status: The system remains in place, and questions about oversight, safeguards, and costs continue.

Sources:

MAiD in Catholic hospitals and conscience rights

The province arranged for a separate MAiD facility beside St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver rather than requiring the Catholic hospital to provide assisted dying within its own facilities. Catholic reporting in September 2026 confirmed the facility was operating. The arrangement is being challenged in court, with the government defending the right of religious hospitals to refuse to provide MAiD.

B.C. also brought in new rules governing health professionals, raising concerns about conscience rights.

Status: The MAiD facility is operating, but the court challenge remains unresolved. The new health-profession rules took effect in April 2026.

Sources:

Drug decriminalization, safer supply and addiction treatment

B.C. began a three-year experiment in 2023 allowing adults to possess small amounts of certain illegal drugs without criminal charges. Following public complaints, the government restricted where drugs could be possessed and eventually ended the experiment in January 2026.

It also tightened its safer-supply program and moved toward more involuntary treatment for people with severe addiction and mental-health problems.

Status: Decriminalization has ended, but addiction treatment and public safety remain active issues.

Sources:

SOGI, parental rights and schools

The Eby government continues to support SOGI 123, the teaching resources dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity in B.C. schools. Critics have raised concerns about parental involvement and what children are taught.

In 2024, the government also passed a law restricting disruptive protests near schools and extended it in 2026.

Status: Government policy remains in place, but SOGI and parental rights continue to be debated during the election campaign.

Sources:

Protection of churches and other places of worship

In April 2026, B.C. passed a law allowing qualifying churches and other places of worship to establish 20-metre protected zones around their entrances. The aim is to prevent intimidation and interference with worship, although the law also raises questions about the right to protest peacefully.

Status: The law is in place.

Sources:

Indigenous rights, land ownership and DRIPA

The Eby government has faced major disputes over Indigenous land rights and how B.C. should apply its law recognizing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIPA).

These include an agreement recognizing Haida title, a court ruling involving Cowichan claims to land in Richmond, and another court case involving the Gitxaala Nation. The government tried to change parts of DRIPA in 2026 but backed down when it could not get enough support.

Status: Still unsettled. Court appeals, land ownership questions, and possible changes to DRIPA remain important issues.

Sources:

Residential-school investigations

The province continues to have a role in investigations at former residential-school sites, although B.C.'s main funding program began under Premier John Horgan, before Eby took office.

In June 2024, Eby's government joined an agreement with Williams Lake First Nation and the RCMP setting out procedures for possible future investigative work at St. Joseph's Mission.

Status: Investigations continue, but this is mainly an ongoing government responsibility rather than a major new Eby policy. Ground-penetrating radar findings should not be described as confirmed discoveries of human remains.

Sources:

Provincial finances, taxes and affordability

B.C.'s 2026 budget projected a record $13.3-billion deficit. The government raised the lowest provincial income-tax rate, changed the terms of property-tax deferrals for seniors, and announced plans to reduce public-sector staffing.

In April 2025, it also eliminated the consumer carbon tax.

Status: These are government decisions already made, although taxes, spending, debt, and affordability remain major election issues.

Sources:

Long-term care and seniors

In February 2026, the government put seven planned long-term care facilities on hold, including projects in Abbotsford and Chilliwack. It cited sharply rising construction costs.

The decision came amid long waiting lists for residential care, while the government said it wanted to put more emphasis on helping seniors remain at home.

Status: The projects remain on hold, and how B.C. will meet growing demand for seniors care is unresolved.

Source:

The Tyee — B.C. halts seven long-term care projects

Housing affordability and short-term rentals

The Eby government introduced measures intended to increase housing construction and restrict short-term rentals, including Airbnb-style accommodation. The changes have been controversial in some tourism communities.

At the same time, budget cuts and delays have put planned affordable-housing projects at risk, including more than 3,500 homes identified in a Metro Vancouver report.

Status: The rental rules are in place, but housing costs, construction delays, and funding remain active issues.

Sources:

Poverty, families, disability support and education

The government ended a special fund that helped schools provide supplies and other assistance to families struggling with costs, while pointing to its school-meal program and other supports.

The 2026 budget did not increase basic welfare or disability-assistance rates, although it added funding for some services for children with special needs. B.C. has also continued its longstanding funding arrangements for eligible Catholic and other independent schools.

Status: These are current funding decisions. Support for low-income families, people with disabilities, and schools remains an ongoing issue.

Sources:

Oil pipelines, LNG and energy development

The Eby government has faced pressure over proposals to bring more Alberta oil to the B.C. coast, along with disagreements over natural gas development, Indigenous consultation, and environmental commitments.

In July 2026, the province approved an exemption allowing Phase 1B of the Tilbury LNG expansion to proceed without the usual utilities-commission certificate. Ottawa is also pursuing a proposed oil pipeline to Delta, although that is a federal initiative rather than a B.C. government approval.

Status: The Tilbury decision has been made, but pipeline proposals and broader energy policy remain active issues.

Sources:

Forestry, jobs and environmental protection

B.C.'s forest industry continues to struggle with mill closures, job losses, and uncertainty over timber supplies. The government has tried to speed up forest planning, but progress has been slow.

In early 2026, it also put on hold plans to require more financial security from industrial operators to help cover future cleanup costs.

Status: Forestry and employment remain ongoing challenges. The industrial cleanup initiative is on hold.

Sources:

U.S. tariffs and B.C.'s response

In 2025, B.C. removed American liquor from provincial sales in response to U.S. tariffs. The government also passed legislation giving it special powers to respond to trade threats, prompting concerns about how much authority cabinet should have without normal legislative oversight.

Some parts of the law were repealed in November 2025, but powers over government purchasing remain in place following changes in 2026.

The tariff dispute also raised broader questions about economic fairness and the common good, discussed in The B.C. Catholic from the perspective of Catholic social teaching.

Status: Some emergency measures have ended, but the government still has special purchasing powers. Trade relations with the United States remain an active issue.

Sources:

Alberta Separation and CST

Pour lire cet article en français, veuillez utiliser le bouton avec le drapeau ci-dessus.
Vous pouvez également télécharger le document pour une meilleure traduction.
Merci de votre patience pendant notre développement.

On October 19, 2026, the province of Alberta will hold a referendum concerning whether the province should seek to separate itself from the rest of Canada and try making a go of it as an independent nation. Importantly, this initial referendum does not seek conclusive authority from voters for separation. Rather, it poses the preliminary question of whether Alberta should invest time and money in defining and proceeding toward a future, binding referendum on its future relationship with Canada. Many Catholics and people of good will are asking how to evaluate what is at stake, and how to form their conscience responsibly.

To navigate the moral questions involved, it is important to first grasp the historical, constitutional, and political dynamics that have brought Alberta to this moment.

Historical Context

Some observers have seen roots of the modern Alberta separatist movement as originating as far back as the North American “Old West,” extending from northern Mexico through Texas and the American-Canadian Rocky Mountains via the early ranching culture and folklore which popularized rugged independence. Years later, the rapid establishment of the oil patch fueled the development of a sub-culture entrenched in maxims of self-reliance, based at least partly on early European settlement patterns which gave rise to distinct frictions with the relatively more-established and interdependent East. Simultaneously, many of the early homesteaders established cultures of mutual support as evident in the thriving cooperative movement. In several instances, like minded groups of migrants established communities scattered across the West to experiment with innovative social initiatives. A remaining example of such institutions is the Alberta Treasury Branch.

Seeds of Alberta’s current separatist sentiment can be dated, for example, to the 1930s, when Ottawa blocked the provincial Social Credit government’s proposed monetary reforms.¹

Sentiments of Western alienation surged during 1970s’ global energy crisis, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s government created Petro‑Canada (1975) and the National Energy Program (1980). Ottawa justified these measures as necessary for protecting national economic stability and energy security; Albertans perceived them as federal interference with or even appropriation of provincial wealth and derogation of the right of self-determination.¹

This became the first major fracture between Alberta and the federal government and the foundation of modern Western Alienation.

From its start, Canada’s constitutional structure has placed several industries under federal jurisdiction (federal departments, Crown corporations, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial transportation, broadcasting, First Nations governments; Constitution Acts 1867–1982, ss. 91–92). Other categories, such as Alberta’s primary exports, oil and gas, fell outside these categories and were nominally relegated to exclusive provincial jurisdiction.²

Subsequent and repeated federal intervention through the use of tax, trade, and other laws has therefore often been experienced by Albertans as unwarranted expropriation and a violation of constitutional intent, and therefore repudiation by the federal government of Canada’s agreed founding principles. Section 91 of the Constitution, for example, was cited in justifying the National Energy Program as a “matter of national interest” and asserting control over provincial oil and gas prices. Many Albertans argue that Ottawa has manipulated the definition of “national interest” to suit itself, overriding constitutional provincial autonomy as a matter of federal political convenience.³

Ensuing decades have not tended to heal the rift, particularly during periods of Liberal control in Parliament. Perceptions of undue intervention have been aggravated by federal responses to the COVID pandemic, environmental initiatives such as the carbon tax, agricultural programing and marketing initiatives such as the former Canadian Wheat Board, and increasing polarization on a number of social issues.

For many Albertans, these policies have represented not just disagreement but a threat to their very economic identity and future. Alberta’s political culture, deeply intertwined with petroleum-based aspects of the American economy and with conservative aspects of “oil patch” culture, is perceived as raising two existential questions:

- Can Alberta and Ottawa work together reasonably, in accordance with agreed durable rules?
- Can Ottawa protect the provinces from external threats?

Key Players and Their Positions

The Alberta Separatist movement has not coalesced as a single centralized group or figure, but rather subsists as a loose coalition of civically active groups with an overlapping objective of sovereignty. Many of these groups clash on their approaches to and their ultimate goals for sovereignty.

“The Alberta Prosperity Project is a non-partisan, non-profit educational initiative working to unite Albertans around the case for sovereignty.” One of their approaches includes encouraging supporters to join the United Conservative party to influence party policy from the inside. Their Stay Free Alberta petition is intended to demonstrate public support for the independence initiative. Some of Alberta’s First Nations challenged this petition on grounds that they were not adequately consulted and sovereignty proposals risk undermining of treaty rights. Some of the Project’s statements have been challenged as not uniformly upholding the dignity of the individual. The Project has also been criticized for meeting directly with the current United States administration in the midst of national instability.
LetsTalkAlberta exists to ensure that “Albertans are informed, engaged, and empowered” when considering the future of the province. “By hosting open conversations in communities across Alberta, we provide a space where questions can be asked, ideas challenged, and the facts explored so that Albertans can make the most important decisions about their future with confidence. “
The Centurion Project, advocates adoption by the Alberta United Conservative Party of independence policy resolutions. “Our Mission: To recruit, equip and mobilize a team of community leaders across the province of Alberta to take on the task of winning Alberta's sovereignty.”

Provincial ‘Remain’ groups:

Forever Canadian: a grassroots non-partisan movement launched by former Deputy Premier of Alberta Tomas Lukaszuk, this group gathered more than 400,000 signatures on a petition to counteract or pre-empt a separatist initiative. They wish to affirm Alberta’s ongoing place in Canada.
Vote to Stay: a third-party advertising group led by former federal Conservative cabinet minister Monte Solberg, and joined by former cabinet colleague/former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, as well as former Alberta finance minister Travis Toews. Their purpose is to “unite Albertans who want to protect Alberta’s future, defend our prosperity, and keep Alberta strong within a united Canada — while motivating every Albertan who believes in staying in Canada to show up, speak out, and vote.” (source)
Lead Not Leave: is a coalition of academics, politicians and journalists, including Ken Boessenkool, Andrew Leach, Jared Wesley, and Jen Gerson, among others, working together to convince voters that “the province’s future is strongest inside a united Canada.”

Alberta Stakeholders

Indigenous Nations are constitutional actors whose rights, land titles, and jurisdictional authorities predate both Alberta and Canada. Their relationship is with the Crown, not with the province, and their treaty rights are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. While a vote for separation and subsequent independence could take years to implement even under the most conducive conditions, Indigenous Nations could have standing and authority to add further delay as they seek to challenge or stall the independence project.
Industry and Economic Actors: many of the main economic drivers in Alberta are risk averse, highly sensitive to investment instability, dependent on interprovincial trade, federal inspection systems, and export markets. Some actors support sovereignty rhetoric as leverage against federal policies but not actual separation.

Outside Alberta within Canada

The federal government. Led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, the federal government has been notably quiet on the separation file, focusing instead on national economic stability and external threats to Canada. Conversations concerning economic irritants unique to Alberta have touched on subjects relevant to both external threats and internal upheaval.
The official opposition, led by Pierre Poilievre. Mr. Poilievre has positioned himself as the only federal leader capable of counteracting the separatism threat and addressing Alberta’s grievances. He argues that his approach to policy, similar to previous Conservative governments, would remove the conditions that make separation appealing to some Albertans.⁴

Outside of Canada

Both Russian and American actors have been accused of executing pro-separatist social media messaging. ⁵

Catholic Social Teaching

Human Dignity. The Church teaches that every political decision must uphold and promote the inherent dignity of every person. The most important duty of governments is to create conditions that enable individuals to find and live in accordance with the truth, which is God. This is the first and inviolable principle of Catholic Social Teaching.This principle is violated, for example, when rhetoric dehumanizes opponents or seeks to treat people as leverage, rather than to help them along their own individual paths toward truth.
Solidarity: we are all unique parts of the one body of Christ. What affects anyone, for good or for bad, whether they be sitting next to me or on the other side of the planet, alive now or in distant future generations, affects me as it does them.Solidarity is the antidote to fragmentation. Pope Leo has made it a central pillar of his pontificate. If this principle is to be respected, then those who are outside Alberta should not abandon their Albertan brothers and sisters in their time of strain. Similarly, Albertans should consider whether the timing of the separation conversation might undermine Canadian unity at time when it is of prime importance to others.The point is not to ignore grievances, but to look for ways to address them without breaking communion. Unity founded on proper values is a moral good. In Fratelli tutti Pope Francis exhorts us to resist polarization and reject tribalism, favouring instead bridge building and reconciliation as approaches over rupture. Some separatist rhetoric can stoke resentment, amplify grievance, frame politics as warfare, and undermine trust in institutions, undermining the principle of solidarity.
Subsidiarity: this fundamental principle is at the core of both Catholic teaching and the grievance between Alberta and the federal government. As a means of ensuring that all individuals and all associations and organizations of human beings are empowered to chart their own free courses through life, all decisions should be made at the lowest responsible level, with all required support from higher levels. Higher levels retain the responsibility to intervene when lower levels cannot protect the common good. Many of the sources of friction feeding separatist sentiment can be viewed as questions of subsidiarity. What are, in fact, the proper roles of federal and provincial governments in issues raised in the separation discussion?It can furthermore be helpful to examine the ramifications of potential separation on the relationships between other levels of government, including municipal governments and First Nations Bands. Some Albertans have reported feeling restricted in their rights to freely and openly participate in political processes without being outcast because of their political views respecting either Alberta or Canada.
The Common Good: Catholics and people of good will must carefully consider whether the proposal to separate Alberta from Canada would promote the flourishing of all people, not only within Alberta but outside it as well. Such a project would seemingly tend to undermine national unity, and with it at least some aspects of economic stability, treaty integrity, and social peace for many people, and interprovincial cooperation as well. Such disruptions seldom come without cost.Nor does it appear that consideration for vulnerable communities has been a prominent point of discussion. Has evidence been put forth to show that support and other social institutions will become more stable in an independent Alberta compared to within a united Canada? Any referendum that risks destabilizing the federation must be evaluated through this lens.
Stewardship: there are many facets to consider in applying principles of stewardship to this debate. Alberta’s natural resources are gifts which should be managed responsibly. This includes long-term planning to protect future generations and ensure sustainable development. Stewardship also applies to economic systems and institutional integrity. Most importantly, stewardship can also apply in the question of the moral weight of the referendum. Catholics and people of good will have the duty to avoid unjustified acts of destabilization.
Dignity of Work: Recent commentary has argued that many jobs could be adversely affected by separation.⁶

Points to Ponder

Truth and Formation of Conscience: Catholics have a moral duty to form their consciences through consideration of truthful, reliable, and proportionate information.
- Have we considered information and points of view from a variety of different sources? Have we attempted to assess potential biases, and the effect of such biases on any conclusions we might feel inclined to draw? Have we accounted for our own biases? Or do we tend to stick to those sources that seem to validate our own cherished points of view?
- Do we get our information from legitimate news sources? Social media? Our friends at home or office?
- Have we considered the potential impacts of biased electoral interference, for example from the United States, Russia, China, or others having an interest in resources located in Alberta?
Freedom: We each have views on what freedom should look like. The Church teaches that just freedom is always rooted in truth and charity, and ordered toward the good.
- Do we interact respectfully with those whose vision of freedom differs from our own?
- Do we tend to use our freedom in ways that promote truth, growth, communion and the common good, or rupture and selfishness; or to perpetuate unjust control of others for the sake of power or greed?
Justice: significant and often valid historical grievances have contributed to current separatist sentiment.
- Can or should the federal government do more to work toward promoting or in some cases restoring justice for Alberta and/or any other provinces?
- If the referendum passes, how can we, as governments, individuals, and a Church, ensure justice for marginalized individuals and minority communities?
- How can we protect treaty rights and uphold constitutional obligations for those who arrived in Canada first?
Economic and Environmental Justice: One ground frequently cited in support of Alberta separation is the need to establish justice in control of resources located within the province. The federal government, it is sometimes said, has no right to control oil, gas, and other resources which are located in Alberta and therefore under the exclusive rightful control of Albertans.
- Is residency a just ground for claims to ownership and control of proximally-located natural resources? Is it fair for those living in a politically-defined region to claim sole ownership and control of natural geological resources located therein?
  - To the extent that such claims are fair, what length of residence should be required to justify them? Multiple generations? A few years? A few weeks? Does birth within the region suffice? Should voluntary relocation to the proximity of valuable resources suffice to support such claims?
  - If resources within Alberta are justly the property of Albertans, what about the Indigenous peoples who preceeded them? Are they not also located on the grounds of current or former First Nations?
    - Can it not likewise be said that resources located in Alberta are also located in Canada? If so, why do they not rightly belong to everyone living in Canada? Could the same question be asked with respect to North America? The Western Hemisphere? The world?
    - Who is the rightful owner of the earth’s resources?
- What rights do future generations have, especially with respect to non-renewable resources? Is it fair for current generations to exhaust supplies of non-renewable resources, without leaving some for those who will follow us? Among other considerations, history suggests that later generations sometimes discover highly valuable uses for substances previously known and used for lesser purposes. What does proper stewardship look like, in such a light?
  - Convenience, too, could be a factor. Future generations may save even more labour from unused resources than we do. Should we consider their circumstances, in addition to our own, in consuming resources?
  - Do the Church’s teachings on the Universal Destination of Goods provide any guidance on these questions?God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner. Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others. (Gaudium et spes, 69)
The Common Good: does separation promote the flourishing of all Albertans, or only some? All Canadians, or only some? Have the voices of the poor and vulnerable been amplified or diminished?
Good Governance:
- Arguments have been presented to the effect that many of Canada’s federal and provincial institutions are not operating optimally or in some cases appropriately, and that we are not stewarding them as well as we could be. But does that mean they should be abandoned? Is there any validity in an argument that we should stick around and try to repair what is broken or reform what is not working?
- Could there be more appropriate ways to resolve federal-provincial tensions? By voting for separation, would Albertans be jumping from the frying pan to the fire?
- As a land-locked country how, could Alberta increase or maintain valuable exports such as oil and grain without greater delay or increased regulation or involvement with the continuing Canadian government?
- If Alberta is divisible from Canada, it might also be true that sub-portions of Alberta are divisible from the new proposed country. Where do such arguments stop?

__________

Notes:

¹See, e.g., https://history.alberta.ca/energyheritage/oil/default.aspx; https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/social-credit

² https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/distribution-of-powers

³ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-sovereign-act-constitutional-experts-1.6669936

⁴ for example, https://globalnews.ca/news/11893861/alberta-separatism-poilievre-federal-policies/; https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-poilievre-separatist-concerns-in-alberta-speech/

⁵for example, https://thewalrus.ca/the-russian-money-behind-albertas-separatist-movement/; https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze2dnn8kgwo

⁵ for example, https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/rising-separatism-in-alberta-and-quebec-could-put-2-million-canadian-jobs-at-risk-trevor-tombe-in-the-hub/; https://www.thealbertan.com/beyond-local/new-afl-report-warns-of-disastrous-impact-of-separation-on-workers-12737153

“Ordinary Joes”: What happens when we each play our part in the ordinary, day-to-day? A Lesson on Faith and Stewardship

I’ve been mulling this item since Monday of the third week of Lent. But on the Feast of Saint Joseph, a posting on Catholic Insight gave me the title and neatly summarized the theme I am trying to express: “Ordinary Joes”. It was applied in that posting to the very least ordinary of Joes, but author April St. Martin had a point: our job in this life is to play the role that is assigned to us, no matter what it is, great or small, in devout keeping with the virtues of faith and deep humility. READ REFLECTION HERE [CTA Button/Link to full reflection on website]

If we do that, who knows what God might be able to accomplish through us?

The reading on that Monday was from the Second book of Kings (2 Kings 5:1-15):

Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man and in high favour with his master, because by him the Lord had given victory to Aram. The man, though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy.

Now the Arameans on one of their raids had taken a young girl captive from the land of Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. She said to her mistress, “If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.” So Naaman went in and told his lord just what the girl from the land of Israel had said. And the king of Aram said, “Go then, and I will send along a letter to the king of Israel.”

He went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten sets of garments. He brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, “When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you my servant Naaman, that you may cure him of his leprosy.”

When the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, “Am I God, to give death or life, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me.” But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, he sent a message to the king, “Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come to me, that he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel.”

So Naaman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha’s house. Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.” But Naaman became angry and went away, saying, “I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy! Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?” He turned and went away in a rage.

But his servants approached and said to him, “Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, ‘Wash, and be clean’?”

So Namaan went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.

Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company; he came and stood before him and said, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.

Now, in this passage, at least seven people are mentioned. Several are both named and quoted, including a king, a military commander, and a prophet. The great points we are apparently meant to take away from the passage are the saving faith and humility of the great commander before people he had helped to conquer; and the casual yet exquisitely faithful disdain of the prophet, who declined to meet face to face with the foreign conqueror even while arranging his cure.

But who is the real hero of this story, the one without whom nothing would have come to pass except the ultimate demise of Naaman through leprosy? Of all these characters, who is it that displays the greatest humility? Who acts in the spirit of deepest, cheerful faith, despite what might seem like compelling reasons to rebel?

The behavior of the “young girl taken captive from the land of Israel,” who served Naaman’s wife, has always struck me as astonishing.

It seems highly probable that this young lady’s introduction to the family she served involved the slaughter or enslavement of her own family, or at the very least her involuntary separation from the home, her neighbours, and the land in which she had been born, not to mention the loss of her own life’s freedom. Yet from all appearances, she cheerfully stepped up to aid her oppressor, the conqueror of her people, in his need. Far beyond the virtue of stooping to the level of the beaten in order to obtain a cure, or of deigning to cure an enemy without the inconvenience of meeting him face to face, this strikes me as turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and adding tunic to cloak as mentioned later on the Mount of Beatitudes.

As April St. Martin explains, holiness seems less often to be tied up with the things we say, the preaching we do, than with the actions we elect to undertake: simply serving in the capacity and the circumstances that God has placed before us. Sometimes that involves the freedom to make choices; other times not. Joseph the son of Jacob served his oppressors faithfully, and thereby was enabled to rescue his entire nation; Joseph the foster-father of Our Lord showed up, obeyed, protected, and worked, and thereby was enabled to facilitate the coming and the mission of the Messiah. How many porters and doorkeepers have served their way to sainthood? The unnamed girl of 2^nd Kings 5 faithfully shared the Good News of God and his prophets with those she was compelled to serve, without apparently seeking any quid pro quo.

In our own lives, we can seek opportunities for simple, quiet service by accepting the families, the homes, the work, and all the other circumstances God has provided for us. And we can usually do more than that, without a great deal of trouble: in a spirit of proper stewardship, we can invest a little of the time that God has entrusted to us in humble contributions to the building of his Kingdom.

For example, we can take the time to pray, to educate ourselves, and to vote, when the time comes, with the good of everyone in mind; and we can take the time to get to know those we’ve elected to serve us, and attempt to prompt them into setting policies based on values of virtue.

It doesn’t seem like a lot, compared to what was asked of Saint Joseph or the young saint-girl of 2^nd Kings. April St. Martin put it very well:

“It made me realize that holiness isn’t about being seen or recognized, but about being faithful in what you’ve been given.”

Just think: if we do that, if we faithfully use all the time, talent, that are given to us, in the circumstances that are given to us, for God’s purposes, what great things might God accomplish through us?

An appeal for support from the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto for a humane limitation to Socially-Assisted Death

We inaugurate our new Calls-to-Action section of the newsletter with an appeal for support from the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto for a humane limitation to Socially-Assisted Death. The full, unedited letter is presented below.

March 2026

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

May Jesus and Mary be in your hearts.

I pray you are living a grace-filled and prayerful Lent. In strengthening the body of Christ in our archdiocese, we hope to communicate electronically more regularly in the months ahead regarding matters of importance to our Catholic community. If these updates are not helpful, you can always unsubscribe through the link provided below.

As you know, our faith teaches us that every human life is sacred — from conception to natural death. Each person is created in the image and likeness of God. No suffering, however profound, ever diminishes that dignity. I am also keenly aware of the pain and anguish of mental illness that has touched the lives of so many parishioners, family members, colleagues and loved ones.

I write today to invite you to visit HelpNotHarmCanada.ca and contact your Member of Parliament (MP) in support of Bill C-218, a private members’ bill that would amend the Criminal Code to prevent Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) when mental illness is the sole underlying condition. The entire process should take no more than three minutes. Tragically, euthanasia in our country has expanded at an alarming rate – we must elevate our voices to halt further harm, fostering a culture of life and loving support to care for one another.

Time is of the essence. Bill C-218 is scheduled for second reading in early April 2026, with a vote expected by mid-April. Without this legislation, the law will expand to provide MAiD for those with mental illness as the sole underlying condition as of March 17, 2027.

Mental illness is real and deeply painful. Yet important truths must guide us:

A desire to die can be a symptom of mental illness itself.
Mental illness is often treatable, and recovery remains possible.
Serious gaps in mental health care support persist in Canada.
Those who suffer are frequently among the most vulnerable.

Our response must be love, solidarity, and a steadfast commitment to care. We are called to offer help, not harm; hope, not despair; protection, not abandonment.I encourage you to visit HelpNotHarmCanada.ca and respectfully urge your MP, regardless of party affiliation, to vote their conscience and support Bill C-218. I will also be writing to all Members of Parliament in the Archdiocese of Toronto, as well as to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to share my deep concern. You may also wish to read a recent statement by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on this issue.

Advocating for laws that protect life is a meaningful expression of our faith in action — most especially during this Lenten journey, a time of prayer, fasting and almsgiving.

Let us pray for our elected officials, that they may be guided by wisdom and courage. May we also hold close in prayer all who live with mental illness and their families, that they may receive compassionate care and renewed hope. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. Be assured of my prayers for you and your loved ones.

Yours sincerely in Jesus with Mary,

Frank Cardinal Leo
Metropolitan Archbishop of Toronto

Of Common Concern: Just War, Revisited

The eruption of new conflicts in the Caribbean and in Western Asia suggests that debate over Just War doctrine will remain active for the foreseeable future. Current debate suggests several points to ponder.

As explained in our previous Just War posting, classic Catholic doctrine imposes strict conditions on the use of military force, even in defense. Among other criteria, in the Catholic view all other options must be exhausted before resort to violence can even conceivably be justified. (Catechism 2302-2308). This was strongly reinforced in Fratelli tutti. Pope Francis pointed out that in practice war is often started by aggressors:

...invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified…” [A critical] issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely. We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war.’ Never again war! (1)

Points to Ponder:

Several justifications for US and Israeli intervention in Iran have been offered to the public, including imminent military threats posed by Iran, regional aggression on the part of Iran, and prophetic religious grounds. Similarly, the threat of narco-terrorism was cited in support of US intervention in Venezuela. Importantly, in each case ex-patriates and other natives of the target countries have voiced support for the intervenors’ vigorous action, citing long-standing maltreatment of local citizens and the utterance and realization of various threats.In each case, however, it is also true that each of the cited grounds has been questioned, sometimes at apparent personal cost to those who refute them.For example, it is widely reported that the director of the US National Counter-terrorism Center resigned on grounds of conscience, noting that no imminent threat to the US existed. Likewise, it is reported that shortly before direct US intervention in Venezuela, a senior US Navy admiral took voluntary early retirement. Others have criticized the interventions on legal grounds, while Pope Leo XIV has pleaded for peace and efforts to avoid a spiral of violence. (2)How can the justifications offered be considered fairly? For example:
- Under classical Catholic Just War doctrine, can pre-emptive attacks ever be justified?
  - Does the fact that multiple justifications, each of them in turn disputed, were offered after the fact, help or hurt the cases offered for pre-emptive strikes?
  - If it is possible to justify such attacks under classic doctrine, do the clarifications offered by Pope Francis alter the analysis?
  - As noted, in some cases the legality of the attacks under national laws has been questioned.(2) How do universal moral and national legal requirements relate to one another?

Estimates of both the human and economic effects of the war vary widely. (3)For example, the US and Israel report the deaths of approximately 30 of their own soldiers, and several thousand deaths among civilians, many of them among Arab neighbours of the combatants. Iran is reported to have suffered approximately 6,000 deaths, military and civilian. In Venezuela, dozens of people were killed, apparently in order to effect two extraordinary arrests. Between the two actions, economic damage is reported to exceed tens or potentially even hundreds of billions of dollars. Environmental damage has not yet been reliably assessed.
- Do the number of reported deaths affect your conclusions about stated justifications for the attacks? What about economic or environmental costs?
  - Human losses would not appear to be fully compensable in this life, meaning that judgment for those will reside with Christ.
  - Who will bear the economic and environmental costs? Will they be borne by the same people who have incurred them, or passed to others?

In the Iran conflict, both sides have used robotic and remotely-controlled weapons in their strikes, including weapons programmed to target specific individuals. In several cases, such attacks have resulted in the “collateral” deaths of individuals who were not specifically targeted, but who happened to be close to the intended targets.
- Can the use of robotic weapons be justified? Can targeted military or political assassination be justified? Do “collateral” deaths of innocent bystanders matter to your answer?
In the Democratic West, reports of the ongoing effect of the war have sometimes tended to focus on domestic prices for commodities such as gasoline and food. (5)
- Does Catholic social doctrine support consideration of the price of local consumer commodities to justify wars that are reported to have killed thousands of people?
To the extent that violent military intervention has not been justified, and given that several of the stated grievances would seem to bear weight, what non-violent alternatives might be available to the various parties to the conflict?
What would Christ say about the interventions? Would his remarks recorded at Matthew 5:17-20; 38-48 have any relevance?

References:

(1) Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti, 258

(2) See, for example,
- https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/17/politics/joe-kent-resigns-iran-war;
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/18/who-is-joe-kent-and-why-did-he-resign-as-trumps-counterterrorism-chief
- https://www.democracynow.org/2026/4/1/palestinian_christians_west_bank
- https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-03/pope-leo-xiv-angelus-appeal-peace-middle-east-iran.html

(3)See, for example,
- https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/the-2026-iran-war-an-initial-take-and-implications
- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-conflict-poses-new-risk-us-economic-resilience-2026-03-02
- https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/iea-chief-world-faces-greatest-global-energy-security-challenge-history
- https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-and-national-security-analysis/iran-conflict-2026-disruption-to-strait-of-hormuz-increases-energy-and-food-production-risks

(4) See, for example,
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/02/middle-east-crisis-oil-prices-inflation-us-iran-interest-rates-growth

(5) See, for example,
- https://www.axios.com/2026/04/01/oil-prices-200-barrel-strait-hormuz?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/02/middle-east-crisis-oil-prices-inflation-us-iran-interest-rates-growth

Subsidiarity: Empowerment, Catholic Style

Thanks to its name, “subsidiarity” is probably the least understood of Catholic social principles. It is not actually difficult to understand, however, and when properly understood can be readily accepted as one of the most important of Catholic social concepts. One key to understanding may lie in thinking of it as “empowerment, Catholic style.”

To help clarify the implications of this important principle, we reached out to Catholics across the country, including several of the nation’s leading voices in social justice, and have incorporated respondents’ comments into the discussion below.

In simple terms, the principle of subsidiarity states that each element of society should serve its own proper purpose, and support others in serving theirs, with the over-arching goal of encouraging and enabling authentic human development for the whole of society. All social elements are called to support one another by providing any required help, or “subsidium.” This includes staying out of the way of other, properly responsible social elements. One consequence of this principle is that each individual, and all smaller groups of people, should be allowed to make for themselves all the decisions that can responsibly be left to them, and to look after their own affairs with the help of other and greater authorities, if and as required.

Jennifer Ide, St Patrick’s Church, Toronto:

As someone new to the concept of subsidiarity, I found this reflection both enlightening and encouraging. I was reminded of 1 Corinthians 12:14-27, where the Body of Christ is made up of many distinct parts, each contributing something valuable in its own way. Even the parts that seem smaller have a purpose that cannot simply be assumed by another - the heart could never fulfill the role of the ear, nor the ear that of the heart - and the health of the whole depends on each part carrying out its own role while supporting, rather than overtaking, the work of the others.

Father Kevin Belgrave, St Augustine’s Seminary Toronto:

I’ve always thought of subsidiarity in the following terms: there is a “scale” to the image of God… the scale of the family, of the neighborhood, of the city, etc, etc. Each level of the scale is essential to the human person’s capacity to thrive. If one rung in the scale is weak, there will be something missing for the person’s full thriving. Each “rung” or element of the scale needs to respect the work of the other parts. I don’t usually think of it as “higher” or “lower” just different. Family needs to respect the goods that only come through the “city” (etc) and the rungs of political community need to respect the goods that only come through family and neighborhood (i.e., mediating institutions).

Kathleen Muggeridge, Young Professional Catholics of Toronto:

Subsidiarity is therefore a critical factor in the empowerment of the common good. A great fruit of this teaching exists on the spiritual plain; subsidiarity provides room for the individual to freely submit to God and His unique and perfect Will for their life, thus leading to the flourishing of the individual's personal relationship with Him. The opposite happens when subsidiarity doesn't exist and the individual will of a person is absorbed by governing authorities; the individual's ability to give a true "fiat" to God's call from the depths of their heart is inhibited if not fully uprooted.

Being a Catholic doctrine and therefore oriented toward the authentic development of the individual, this brand of empowerment comes with some conditions. For example, while it promotes the idea of empowering individuals and smaller groups to express their freedom, it is meant to promote authentic freedom, which is intimately bound to truth and the needs of the common good, and therefor points directly toward God.

This distinguishes Catholic subsidiarity from some secular conceptions of empowerment, which encourage individuals to seek the realization of their own “inner truths” by indulging whatever impulses or desires they see fit, with no firm reference to their own authentic needs, or the needs or interests of others - even to the point of chasing unreal fantasies or indulging greedy inclinations.

Peter Copeland, Toronto

I think it might help to expand on why the church promotes subsidiarity. Although it might come off sounding a bit theoretical, it all works very nicely when you couch explanations of CST principles in logical terms, starting a logical chain with our creation in the image of God, Imago dei, and the imperative of serving the common good, and working onward from there. For example, we are made Imago dei, and to live that reality we are given freedom and meant to use it in society; and we do so by developing and exercising our capacities, which includes responsibility and ownership of the things in our lives. That's why we have subsidiarity - it helps us develop and exercise our freedom properly, which is done by seeking truth and promoting goodness in the social form, which is the common good. Teleologically, subsidiarity is present when those who ought to be responsible for a given order are using it for the realization of the common good.

Points to Ponder in Evaluating Policies and Legislation

The Church teaches that the purpose of government is to provide a legal, political and economic framework in which the true common good can flourish, in order that the people may accomplish their life’s mission - that is, so that they may use the freedom granted to them by God to seek and live in accordance with the truth, and thereby find their way back to Him. The true common good consists in enabling and encouraging all individuals to seek their own proper path to God.

In accomplishing this purpose, government is expected to work together cooperatively with all other social institutions, including the family; the Church and other moral and educational institutions; civil society and cultural organizations; the organs of a fair market economy; the media; and all other levels of government.

All of government’s activities should be informed by and discharged in accordance with the principles, values and virtues of good government. In the Catholic view, good governance consists in adherence to:

The permanent principles of the sanctity of life and human dignity, the common good as defined above, subsidiarity, and solidarity;
The fundamental values of truth, freedom, justice and charitable love.
The virtues of prudence and good stewardship, wisdom, humility, and respect.

Governance in accordance with these principles can help to ensure that policies and legislation are adopted only when they are wise, prudent, and balanced, and likely to serve the true good of society.

In considering any proposed policy or legislation, Catholics should ask:

Is the proposal appropriately tailored to enable government to accomplish a legitimate social purpose in right cooperation with other social institutions, properly respecting the rights, roles, needs, and proper expectations of such other institutions? Does it tend to usurp authority or responsibility which properly belongs to other institutions?
In particular, does it promote the common good without unduly burdening families, individuals, or other organs of society?
Does the proposal properly support growth or development in individuals and lower-order entities, without unnecessarily or unjustly burdening or harming anyone?
Is the proposal consistent with democratic principles of providing all members of society an appropriate voice in governance, as well as equal protection and equal benefit under the law? How does it affect my neighbours? How does it affect those in other cities, other provinces, other countries, or other generations?
Is it likely to accomplish its purpose with prudence and efficiency? Are there simpler, less expensive, or less intrusive alternatives for accomplishing the same purpose? Does the proposal tend to unnecessarily expand legislation or bureaucracy?

Paradigm of Tolerance and Charitable Love: Venerable Pierre Toussaint

When he saw the crowds, Jesus went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. He began to teach them, saying… You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. (Matthew 5:38-42).

Few people have lived these words like Venerable Pierre Toussaint. Born into slavery on a Haitian sugar plantation and taken to New York in slavery as an adult, he not only cheerfully served those who subjugated and claimed to own him, but contrived by cheerful, faithful service to earn enough money to buy others out of slavery and ultimately, upon earning his own release, to purchase a home that he shared with the poor, orphans, the sick, and others in need.

Teaming in other good works with his wife, who was among those for whom he purchased an acknowledgement of freedom, he ultimately came to be acknowledged as the de facto founder of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York.

Truly Venerable Pierre Toussaint offers a lesson from which many people might benefit.

Points to Ponder:

The Theological Virtues of faith, hope, and charity are explained in Sections 1812 to 1829 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Section 1822 teaches that “charity is the virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.” (Compare Matthew 22:34-40)

Section 1825 teaches that the Apostle Paul has given the incomparable description of charity:

Charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

(Quoting 1 Corinthians 13)

How well did Venerable Pierre Toussaint’s behaviour meet Saint Paul’s description?

Did he demonstrate patience and kindness? It is reported that:
- during his enslavement he accepted education from his enslavers, served them lovingly, and while still enslaved worked his way as an adult through apprenticeship to become a successful hairdresser for prominent New York women – including the wife of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton – at a time when such women tended to use their maids for hairdressing; and that attracted a large a large clientele by his intelligence, artistry, and civility.
- when the couple who claimed ownership of him lost their money and property and the husband died, Pierre willingly took on the role of supporting his former master’s wife, her new husband, her extended family, and his own still-enslaved relatives, financially and otherwise.
- even after he was freed at the age of about 40, he corresponded with the family that had claimed to own him.
- following his release, he bought his sister’s freedom, along with the woman he married. After his sister died, he adopted her daughter.
- together with his wife, became involved in a number of charitable efforts,
  - beginning by taking baked good to children at the Colored Orphan Asylum and donating money;
  - sheltering orphans, sick people (including at least one priest) and others in need in his own home, and supporting them in education and vocational training;
  - organizing a credit bureau, an employment agency, a refuge for priests and needy travelers;
  - helping immigrants, particularly by using his ability in the French language to help Haitian refugees;
  - helping open the first Catholic school in New York for Black children, at St Vincent de Paul on Canal street.
- In doing these things, it is reported that he worked assiduously to control his own fiery temper.
Did Venerable Pierre show jealousy, or boast? Is he reported to have been arrogant or rude? Does he appear to have insisted on having his own way? Was he irritable or resentful? It is reported that:
- he acknowledged that he consciously fought his own naturally quick temper and supressed a talent for mimicry, explaining that he realized that anger and mimicry from him might not be well tolerated by the society that claimed power over him.
- from the time he was allowed to go free in 1807, until New York abolished slavery twenty-two years later, he risked abduction and re-enslavement by bounty hunters simply by going outdoors, walking everywhere because Blacks were not allowed to use public transportation.
- he helped raise funds for the first Catholic orphanage in NY, which was opened by the Sisters in Charity, even though it served only white children.
Did Venerable Pierre rejoice at wrong, or at right? It is reported that:
- upon being released from legal bondage he took the surname Toussaint in honour of the Catholic Haitian revolutionary, Toussaint L’Overture, who led his country to freedom while remaining faithful to his beliefs.
- he attended Mass daily for 66 years, and contributed liberally to the construction of the new Saint Patrick’s.
- at the time of the proclamation of venerability in 1997, some people are reported to have disagreed with the declaration, on grounds that although he had been born into slavery, he did not resist his enslavement, or work to end slavery as an institution.

At his death, Venerable Pierre was buried in the cemetery of Old Saint Patrick’s Church in New York City. In the 1950s, the Irish-American John Boyle O’Reilly Committee for Interracial Justice began a campaign to research and publicize Venerable Pierre’s life story. In 1968, Cardinal John O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, named him a Servant of God and transferred his body to the crypt of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral; he remains the only lay person interred there. In 1997, he was declared venerable by Pope Saint John Paul II.

As Saint Paul put it, “charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7)

Sources:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1826.
https://slaveryandremembrance.org/people/person/?id=PP051
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/obituaries/pierre-toussaint-overlooked.html
Franciscan Media: https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-of-the-day/venerable-pierre-toussaint/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Toussaint

MDRC 2024-4: Same-Day Assisted Suicide in Ontario

A new report raises questions about the "provisioning" of same-day suicide requests in the province of Ontario.

According to the province, in January 2024 the office of its Chief Coroner established, as part of a procedural adjustment reflecting an allegedly “more mature state” of Socially-Assisted Death (SAD)¹ practice in Ontario, a new Death Review Committee (MDRC) comprised of 16 members from across multiple disciplines, including law, ethics, medicine, social work, nursing, mental health and disability experts, and one member of the general public, to add “advisory support” to existing SAD oversight measures in Ontario. The committee is mandated to provide recommendations and guidance that may inform the practice of SAD through the evaluation and discussion of topics, themes, and trends identified by SAD review teams (MRTs).”

The goal of the MDRC is identified as providing multidisciplinary expert review of SAD deaths in Ontario with legislative, practice, health, social, and/or intersectional complexities identified through the already-existing oversight and review process, with a goal “to support quality practice and the safety of patients and [SAD] practitioners.” This goal is to be accomplished “through the dissemination of reports.”

These reports are meant to include, “where possible and appropriate, a diversity of thought and perspectives from committee members,” without aiming to establish consensus. Opinions of members are not collated or counted; rather qualifiers such as “few, some, many, most” are used to express the extent of support by committee members.

A recent MDRC Report² raised concerns with several assisted suicides “provided” within 24-48 hours of request. Each of the cases involved circumstances that called the effectiveness of the consent into question, such as withdrawal of earlier requests and statements of reservation on spiritual grounds; disagreement among SAD assessors and “providers”; reliance on virtual assessments rather than in-person consultation; possible undue influence by family members; and unavailability of a preferred options such as palliative care.

Church Teaching:

Sanctity of Life: the Church proclaims the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death.
We care about the sanctity of life because the entire purpose of each soul God endows with life is to find its way back to God by loving God and caring for all the souls God has placed around it, using all the time and talents that have been entrusted to us to seek God in heaven, our hearts, and each other. Voluntary termination of life any time between conception and natural death necessarily frustrates that purpose.Even when we are disappointed, ill, or in pain we are meant to accept our challenges, offering our suffering to God in the knowledge that this life is passing and that we are intended for greater things. It’s also important to remember that human sufferings and weaknesses offer souls the opportunity to help one another, accompanying each other through all phases of life.

Socially-assisted suicide is clearly contrary to these purposes.
Truth, Freedom, Justice, and Charitable Love. These four fundamental values of Catholic teaching offer rich ground for reflection in the context of birth, life, and death.

Points to Ponder:

When patients are weak, worn out, in pain or distress, confused and not thinking clearly, alone and facing death, are they typically considered to be in condition to make wise, well-considered decisions regarding the culmination of their lifetimes’ work? When decisions are pushed upon them in such conditions, is their consent really sincere or effective?
What happens when SAD or “MAiD” assessors disagree with one another, or with SAD “providers?” How is a decision reached? Given the sharp distinction between life and death, is compromise possible? If not, what would a just, loving, charitable, wise, or prudent decision look like?
Clearly the responsibility of SAD assessors and “providers” is immense; the line between a consented and an unconsented killing can be very thin. What happens when an assessor or “provider” crosses the line between a true consent into something that looks more like a decision in favour of bureaucratic or organizational efficiency, or maybe even something worse?
How are SAD assessors and “providers” chosen, and reviewed? What criteria are applied? And what happens when they make unjustifiable choices that result in the killing of other people?
The table below is taken from MDRC Report 2024-02. It purports to show underlying conditions that were relied upon in the SAD process to justify government-inflicted homicides for which responsibility has been distributed among all members of society. Note that separate lines are provided for “Complex Chronic,” “Musculoskeletal”, and “Autoimmune” causes, to each of which none or single deaths are attributed. It being the case that zero or one killings justified separate listing of those causes, what conditions are covered by the 14 causes grouped under “Other” cases listed on the 4^th line? If authors of the report were willing to devote lines to causes with single or no deaths, why could not the 14 “other” causes be defined?

¹NOTE: Federal and Provincial authorities identify Socially-Assisted Death practices as “medical assistance in dying, or “MAiD”. Catholic Conscience prefers the acronym “SAD”.

² MDRC Report 2024-4: Complex Same-Day / Next Day Provisions, accessible at https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-Report-2024.4_Same-Day-Next-Day-Provisions_Final.pdf. Catholic Conscience thanks the Macdonald – Laurier Institute for making the report available to the public.

Combating Hate (Canada Bill C-9)

Among bills debated by the House of Commons during the 45th Parliament is C-9, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda, Hate Crime, and Access to Religious or Cultural Places).¹Along with other bills considered during that parliament, it is summarized and annotated on our Parliament Brief page.²

According to Bill C-9’s sponsor, Justice Minister Sean Fraser, during his introduction at second reading,

…One of the great promises of Canada is the right of its citizens to live freely, regardless of the colour of their skin, the God they pray to, their gender identity or the person they love…

It is important we understand the scale of what we have observed in Canada's recent history. Nearly 5,000 hate crimes are officially reported by law enforcement annually in this country. We know, through conversations with affected communities, that the true number is much, much higher. The under-reporting of hate crimes is in and of itself a symptom of a societal problem: that people may not have faith that the criminal law is actually equipped to deal with the circumstances they face so routinely in their communities.

It troubles me greatly when I open the newspapers and see such stories. When I meet with Jewish Canadians, they tell me that they are beginning to question whether they have a place in this country, as a result of the hate they have been subjected to. I think about what I have witnessed in my own community, with local police laying charges for the advocating of genocide toward Jewish Canadians. Recently in my home province of Nova Scotia, synagogues have been desecrated with hate symbols that seek to intimidate people of the Jewish faith against practising their religion. The National Holocaust Monument has been desecrated. Is there no limit to indecency?

There are many communities that are impacted. I think about Muslim Canadians, who are suffering from a wave of Islamophobia that we must address. I have met with people and visited their mosques, people who have told me what it is like to be harassed in their communities and told me about the fear they have when they seek to gather and pray…

This is completely unacceptable. .. People do not feel safe to practice their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples…

I fear that, too often, we, as Canadians, are failing our neighbours. We should seek to be better neighbours. We are responsible, in my view, not only for the acts that we ourselves commit, but for the injustices that we see and accept through our acquiescence and through our inaction. When we see instances of hate in our community, we have a duty to condemn them, to speak up and to show support for our fellow Canadians. It should not be too much to ask that our neighbours take care of one another. Should we adopt that approach, we will collectively be better off.³

Official Summary:

The Act proposes to amend the Criminal Code to, among other things,

(a) repeal a requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences;

(b) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;

(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;

(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and

(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Commentary

Commentary at second reading fell along predictably partisan lines.

While commending the objectives of protecting vulnerable communities and supporting police and prosecutors, Conservative members questioned:
- Why the bill proposes to define hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”, rather than adopting the stricter standard adopted by the Supreme Court in Regina v. Keegstra of “extreme detestation and extreme vilification.” The party further questioned why the qualifier “extreme manifestations” had been dropped.
- Why it is proposed to remove the existing requirement that the relevant provincial Attorney General consent to the laying of hate charges.
- Why attacks against Christianity within Canada had not been mentioned by the government. When another member laughed at this question, a Conservative member reminded the House that between May 2021 and December 2023 thirty-three Christian churches had been burned in Canada, and that the previous Parliament had declined to condemn the attacks, along with crimes against other religious groups.
- Why it was not proposed to refine existing laws, rather than adding a new and confusing piece of legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois questioned failure of the propsal to repeal a religious exemption from hate speech, where statements are based on religious texts.
The Green party questioned why, when several “strong pieces” of hate legislation already exist, additional strictures tied to a new definition of “hatred” are proposed, since “[I]t does not make sense to add new legislation where it is not needed” and thereby make things more confusing.

The Government replied that it welcomed all good-faith criticism, and wished to adapt the bill so that all parties are satisfied. However, several of the objections were stated to be suspected of being based on bad faith.

In the press, Catholic commentators expressed concern over the apparent lack of concern about the federal government toward the more than 300 arsons and acts of vandalism perpetrated against Christian churches since 2021.⁴

Points to Ponder

What is the best way for a society to combat hate? Is it preferable to add laws attempting to carefully circumscribe all combinations and permutations of action and mental states, or to rely on simpler, already existing laws, where they exist and cover the proscribed behaviour?
- Canada Criminal Code Section 434, for example, specifies that “Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” This would cover churches and other places of worship, as well as parked cars, trash bins, and all other forms of property.
  - Which is more difficult to prove? That a fire was intentionally or recklessly set, or that it was set with “an emotion of detestation or vilification (extreme or otherwise) that is stronger than disdain or dislike?”
  - Would it make sense, in addition or as an alternative to adding new laws, to enforce existing laws? It is charged, for example, that authorities declined to take serious action to investigate or prosecute several of the fires that destroyed Canadian Catholic churches between 2021 and 2023.⁶
- Do there already exist laws that prohibit individuals from blocking others from access to places of religious worship?
- Do there exist other ways to combat hate, in addition or as an alternative to criminal legislation?
  - For example, should public schools teach children that burning churches and other places of worship, or barring worshippers from entering, is wrong?
  - Does, could, or should the Catholic Church have any role to play in combatting hate? What, if anything, could or should be done?
- Like arson, murder - and inciting others to commit murder or other forms of violence - is also already illegal in many jurisdictions. Still, it is reported that following the murder of activist Charlie Kirk in September 2025, a number of public figures openly praised the killing⁶ in terms that might well be construed as approving of the killing of individuals who speak publicly against their own ideas. Such figures included, for example:
  - A professor of political science and religion at the University of Toronto, who shared a post citing the killing as “honestly too good for so many of you fascist c—ts.”
  - A University of Calgary associate professor, who posted comments including “Bullseye” and “Charlie Kirk no longer exists” together with an emoji of a laughing face.
  - The province of Manitoba’s Minister of Families, who shared a post stating that “I extend absolutely no empathy for people like that.”
    Do such statements fall as “hate speech,” or as motivated by hatred, within the strictures of the proposed law, or any other? To the extent that they incite further violence, should such statements be curtailed?

As noted above, concerns have been stated about the apparent governmental indifference to crimes against Christian communities. In introducing and justifying the bill, however, Minister Fraser stated, among other things, that “People do not feel safe to practice their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples…”³
- The term "place of religious worship" does not appear to be defined within t bill. However, most dictionaries accept that a “church” is a place of Christian worship, or a body of Christian believers.
  - Is it important that Catholics and other Christians respect truth and fairness in argument?
  - If so, is the fact that the Minister led his list of worship houses with churches relevant?
  - It seems undeniable that the previous government was not very interested in defending Catholics or other Christians from persecution. Has the current government given any indication of its interest level?

Sources:

« Previous

Points to Ponder: BC’s 2026 snap election

“Ordinary Joes”: What happens when we each play our part in the ordinary, day-to-day? A Lesson on Faith and Stewardship

An appeal for support from the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto for a humane limitation to Socially-Assisted Death

Of Common Concern: Just War, Revisited

Paradigm of Tolerance and Charitable Love: Venerable Pierre Toussaint

Venerable Pierre Toussaint (1766-1853)

Alberta Referendum 2026

British Columbia Snap Provincial Election 2026

Prince Edward Island Provincial Election 2027

Manitoba Provincial Election 2027

Northwest Territories General Election 2027