Andrew Scheer recently gave a speech on immigration which raised red flags for pro-family Canadians who believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

Sadly, it signals more backsliding on Scheer’s Catholic beliefs, and a further embrace of LGBTTIQ2S+ ideology by the Conservative Leader.

During the speech, Scheer used the LGBT-speak of “sexual orientation” to threaten that certain people are not welcome in the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC):

“I find the notion that one’s race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation would make anyone in any way superior or inferior to anyone else absolutely repugnant. And if there’s anyone who disagrees with that, there’s the door. You are not welcome here.” (emphasis added)

Of course, we all agree that no human being is superior or inferior to another. Each person, owing to his or her humanity, has equal dignity and worth in the eyes of God. That includes persons who experience same-sex attraction or any other struggle with sin.

However, Scheer’s statement presents a couple of serious problems, both politically and morally.

First of all, it’s so vague that different people could read anything they want into it. It’s not difficult to read into it an anti-Christian meaning of the kind that gay-activists so often hurl at believers to vilify them as somehow being "hateful", simply because they adhere to the biblical belief that homosexual acts are sinful.

What precisely does Scheer mean when he says he finds it "repugnant" that one person could possess the notion that “sexual orientation” makes another person “superior or inferior”? And that persons with such notions “are not welcome” in the Conservative Party?

A liberal-minded person hearing that statement can easily interpret it to mean that Canadians who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are judging homosexuals as “inferior” to heterosexuals. It would follow therefore, that they are not welcome in the Conservative Party.

A gay activist can read into that statement that Scheer would tell Christians who believe that homosexual acts are sinful, that they "are not welcome here". That’s because in the gay-activist’s mind, the belief that sodomy is a sin, is tantamount to viewing homosexuals as "inferior". (It’s not, by the way, because Christians love the sinner but not the sin).

A kind-hearted Christian who’s not politically attuned could interpret that statement to mean what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, and which I myself agree with, i.e. that we must avoid every sign of unjust discrimination towards same-sex attracted persons. It could simply mean that violence towards persons with same-sex attraction is wrong, which again, would be a sentiment I support.

But what exactly did Andrew Scheer mean by it? Did he intend to send the message that people of faith who believe in traditional marriage are no longer welcome as members of the Conservative Party? Was it a dog-whistle to the left? I can’t say for sure, one way or the other, because it was too vague a statement.

But even if Scheer didn’t intend that meaning, it can easily result in very bad consequences for socially conservative members of the CPC nonetheless. There are a lot of red Tories in the party establishment, on CPC National Council, and in caucus.

If they drew from Scheer’s statement that people of faith who believe in traditional marriage and reject transgender ideology “are not welcome here”, they will become even more emboldened to suppress the voices of social conservatives, and to drive us out of the party .

Scheer needs to clarify what he did and did not mean before these red Tories start running amok.

He needs to state clearly whether Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and people of other faiths who believe in natural marriage and who oppose the LGBT lifestyle are still welcome in the Conservative Party. That question is now hanging out there, thanks to Andrew himself.

A second problem for Scheer as a Catholic legislator was his use of the term “sexual orientation” in the speech. This is a significant spiritual and ethical problem.

This Catholic lawmaker who was raised in a devout family, used the socially-constructed and problematic term of “sexual orientation”. He also used the politically-loaded labels of “gays” and “lesbians” in the same speech.

That is not the language of faithful sons of the church. The Catholic Church speaks of persons who experience “same-sex attraction”, not of any inborn “sexual orientation”. Setting aside dissidents and heretics like Father James Martin, the official teaching of the Church and the magisterium of the Catholic Church never speaks of “gays” or “lesbians”, as if there are other type of humans besides males and females.

The Church acknowledges that there are only two varieties of human beings - men and women - and that human nature itself is heterosexual, and ordered towards procreation through the complementarity of the sexes. Neither does the Church define human beings by their sexual preferences, nor by the type of sin that they may practice, nor by the post-modern invention of multiple gender identities.

As a Catholic, Scheer ought to know better. He shouldn’t be using the propaganda term of “sexual orientation”. In his speech he also listed “gender” together with “sexual orientation”, which may possibly have been a dog whistle to signal support for “gender identity” theory. To embrace and promote these, he is crossing a moral red line as a Catholic.

The fact of the matter is that “sexual orientation” is an invented construct, tied to the big lie that “gay people are born that way”. They are not.

We know from more than a century worth of scientific literature and clinical research that there’s overwhelming evidence that homosexual attraction is caused in childhood by an experienced trauma, and no proof whatsoever that people are born gay.

We know that in boys, same-sex attraction develops at a young age primarily due to an attachment disorder with the father, or for girls, with the mother. This attachment disorder can interact with a couple of other factors to produce same-sex attraction. Another common factor for homosexuality is sexual molestation during childhood by an older man.

This is the real reason why in provincial legislature after provincial legislature, progressives are feverishly banning therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction. Patients who walk away from the homosexual lifestyle thanks to reparative therapy represent a threat to the big lie of “born gay”.

If psychoanalysis is shown to successfully uncover and heal the underlying trauma that caused the same-sex attraction in the first place, people will begin to question the “born gay” myth, which is the source of the homosexual lobby's vast political power.

To leftists, the big lie must be kept alive and the threat neutralized, even if it means making it illegal for people to get the therapy they desperately want and are asking for.

The notion of an inborn “sexual orientation” that is immutable was invented by gay-activists a few decades ago for the purpose of achieving social acceptance of homosexual behaviour by playing on public sympathy. After all, if someone is 'born that way', how can we stand in the way of following their nature? That strategy, built on a lie, succeeded wildly.

However, it has absolutely no grounding in science or legitimate clinical research. No gay gene has ever been found. Nor will it ever be. Scheer’s smart enough, and has been around social conservatives long enough to know this.

When in 2016 Scheer spoke in favour of the LGBTory motion to delete the then existing CPC policy which supported the traditional definition of marriage, CLC warned that this moving away from his Catholic principles could lead to greater compromises in the future, and a further drift towards social liberalism. We were attacked for it then.

But here we are in 2019, watching with sadness, Andrew now adopting the anti-human language of the gay lobby which contradicts Christian anthropology of the human person.

Here we are, watching with dismay, Andrews own words hanging a question in the air about whether pro-traditional marriage Conservatives are even welcome in the party, and supplying ammunition to the progressive forces in the CPC establishment who want to drive so-cons out.

What will today’s compromise lead to tomorrow?

My message to Andrew is this: Do not embrace the left’s ideology and flawed language. Do not join in the left's demonization of pro-family Canadians. Stand by your Catholic values which, by the way, align with the conservative principles of faith, family and freedom.

For those of you reading, please pray for Andrew to stop drifting leftward, and to return fully to his Catholic senses. In that way, should he become Prime Minister, he can be a more just and wise leader for all Canadians.