Sooey Says

The National Post is currently doing a series whereby National Post writers answer a simple question: "If you could change a single thing about Canada, what would it be?"

Now, I know I should ignore the National Post, you know, just pretend it isn't there like most other Canadians do, but I can't help myself when someone posts something on my forum like this:

FatherDeSouzaOnMarriage-Seriously,NoKidding,ReadItToBelieveIt

I feel compelled to respond. Not because I want to so much as I have to. Because as soon as I see that a Catholic Priest has popped his head up in a national newspaper as if he is some kind of expert on anything other than shilling for the Pope, I get that Regan in The Exorcist feeling and before I know it, my head is spinning around and I'm projectile vomiting pea soup and eventually I'm masturbating with a Cross.

Ow.

Now, the fact that the first article in the NatPost series is by a Catholic Priest on the Institution of Marriage shouldn't really surprise me, and yet - it does. I mean, c'mon. Can we at least advance to step two after step one (which is The Person's Case, BNA, 1929) at some point and leave all this Patriarchal Gawdshit behind?

Anyway, it should take just a minute to debunk Ol' Single Celibate Souz who says, quite as if it was true and not just something pulled out of his holy ass for authoritarian effect:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the very least, for marriages with children some provisions of fault and penalty should be restored in the case of divorce. The best social policy for children is an intact family, and the no-fault regime undermines family stability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, Souz - Who says the best social policy for children is an intact family? Because I say it isn't. And I've been married. You haven't. For all you know, for all anybody knows, divorced lesbian pagan parents are the best social policy for children.

And why, "at the very least", as you put it, "for marriages with children" should "some provisions of fault and penalty be restored in the case of divorce"? Because you like blame? Because blame is good? Because you're so worried there won't be enough Gawd blame meted (met?) out on Judgement Day that you need to get as much blaming in here on Earth as you can while the blaming is still good?

What, in Gawd's name, could possibly be the point of adding MORE blame to the mix, of institutionalizing blame alongside marriage? Especially since it will only lead to more hurt, more anger, and most importantly for the children AND their parents - MORE LITIGATION!!

Ah, except for the fact maybe that it was social progress that ensured blame be REMOVED from the mix - right, Father? Well, I see your Catholic devil and raise you one Catholic saint. Ah... Pierre Elliot Trudeau, you old dead Jesuit you - Gawd lurve ya but you were good for Canadians in spite of your Church.

Because, yes, Father de Souza, the no-fault "regime", as you so bizarrely put it, is one of those single things in Canada most of us wouldn't exchange for all of eternity in the next life. In one of those rare moments of clarity, our politicians got it right and we've all learned to accept that while life may not always be fair, there's no point in blaming anyone for it, either.

Except Gawd, maybe. What the hell. Why don't we just get along and agree to blame Gawd for it all instead of each other, Father?

Father?

Aw crap. You stopped reading after "The National Post" didn't you...