ࡱ> #` whbjbj\.\. .>>ɸ(((()<Q)))))***PPPPPPP$RhU*PR2**R2R2P))P444R2j))P4R2P44RL~N)) L (2 MPP0Q"M\9UV3`9U0~N9U~N*,4/.4c/***PP4 ***QR2R2R2R2, , ^ The Secretariat Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Level 8, Piccadilly Tower 133 Castlereagh Street GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 25 October 2006 Dear Sir, Submission from the Marriage and Family Office, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney to the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry In my position as the Director of the Marriage and Family Office, and drawing on my experience as a family and parent advocate, educator and bioethicist, I wish to forward this submission on behalf of the Marriage and Family Office, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney. The Marriage and Family Office is an agency of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney and has been established to extend the research, policy, educational and pastoral activities the Church undertakes with respect to marriage and family issues. Currently there are some 589,000 Catholics in the Archdiocese of Sydney, constituting 32.3% of the general population living within the geographical boundaries of the diocese. Over one million Catholics live in the greater Sydney area and 1.9 million reside in the State of New South Wales. The Catholic Church has a long and ongoing tradition of support for marriage and family life and Catholic agencies have long dedicated significant resources to these areas. We have extensive experience in the preparation of persons for marriage and continue to be involved as a significant non-government provider of services in support of family life. Catholics hold strong beliefs about the dignity of every human person and of the intrinsic value of marriage and family both for the individual and for the society. Within this context, we are very supportive of a legislative structure which gives preferential support to traditional marriage and family life over other forms of relationships. We maintain that this also supports the best interests of children and best facilitates their ability to flourish within any society. Comments re the Discussion Paper The contents of the paper and the questions contained within propose the perceived need to redefine or extend the meanings of such commonly understood terms as spouse, parent and child. We do not believe that the redefinition of such commonly understood concepts is in the interests of any individual or of the Australian society at large. Rather, it simply obscures the true meaning of what has been the accumulated wisdom of thousands of generations across every culture and religion. Until very recently, societies have understood that marriage and family involved a man and a woman in an exclusive and committed relationship along with any biological children that they may have. Healthy societies have also understood that such relationships are particularly important and as such, are deserving of preferential support. Married and de facto heterosexual unions have been accorded a special place under the law because of what they offer the society. We do not accept that such unions are simply a legal construct with an attendant package of benefits. Neither do we believe that they are simply consequent product of the laws that define them. Married heterosexual unions offer a number of benefits to any society and this is the reason why they have been regarded as a part of the social estate. It is also why societies have traditionally legislated in this area of human relationships. These benefits include the generation of children and future citizens; a safe environment for the nurturing of these children; two parents who are biologically connected to their child and who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of that child and to monitor each others care of that child; two complementary parents who can provide appropriate gender role modeling; an inter-generational connectedness within families and societies; and a mechanism for more effectively connecting children to their fathers both to satisfy each childs longing for their father and to ensure a more equitable distribution of the parenting burden. All societies understand that while having and nurturing children may be optional for couples, it is not optional for societies. The framework of the inquiry seems predicated on the assumption that it is only two person heterosexual and homosexual unions that should receive the preferential legislative treatment as defined under the various Acts. However, such a notion raises many more questions than it answers and affords a myriad of opportunities for exploitation. If equivalence between relationships is not concerned with the predisposition to have and care for children, why does it have to be concerned with sexual intimacy at all? Why not offer benefits to de facto parent-child couples? Why should best friends who are not sexually intimate be excluded from such benefits? Why shouldnt de facto sibling relationships be similarly recognized and supported? Why should we not accord family entitlements to polygamous and polyamorous relationships involving numerous individuals? Although there are undoubtedly persons who are already living in such relationships, the law (at least at present) does not oblige governments to accord them preferential support and relationship benefits. It is not sexual orientation or even simple co-dependency, that have been the basis for according the various forms of social benefits. Rather, the reason why committed and exclusive heterosexual unions have been accorded preferential support is because they contribute to the social estate in a way that other forms of unions do not. Specific comments concerning the value of according preferential support to heterosexual unions over other forms of relationships. 1. Heterosexual unions respect and model the difference and complementarity of persons; same sex relationships promote different models, values and behaviours. Within a heterosexual union we move to a circumstance where we are with an other who is different, who is equal but complementary, who is biologically and psychologically different and yet physically compatible at the most intimate of levels. An acceptance of this natural complementarity of men and women enables an individual to mature in their psychosocial understanding of what it is to be a human person. Same sex relationships cannot welcome children in the same way as a heterosexual couple. This is because same sex couples cannot exemplify the same level of difference and complementarity and openness to new life. Respect for this natural complementarity is described by sociology professor Dr David Popenoe: We should disavow the notion that mummies can make good daddies just as we should disavow the notion of radical feminists that daddies can make good mummiesThe two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary culturally and biologically for the optimal development of a human being. David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of 鱨վ and Society, (New York: The Free Press 1996), p 197 2. Heterosexual marriages are more likely to value fidelity and exclusivity. Successful cultures have always esteemed fidelity and exclusivity within marriage. Although adultery is not illegal in Australia, the vast majority of Australians view it as undesirable and wrong. This is because most of us realize that sanctioned dishonesty has an insidious and damaging effect on any society. The Australian Study of Health and Relationships (2001) revealed that over 77% of both men and women regard having an affair when in a committed relationship as wrong. Data from the Australian Family Values Survey (1997) also revealed that faithfulness was considered the most important aspect for a successful marriage. In contrast, in the first edition of his book in defence of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual advocate and intellectual Andrew Sullivan wrote: There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. One recent university study of civil unions and marriages revealed that 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. In comparison, only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity. Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology. This is consistent with the results of the extensive study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years conducted by McWhirter and Mattison: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men have all been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. D. McWhirter and A. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), p 252,253 Another study published in 2003 found that among homosexual men in the Netherlands, the rate at which men with a steady partner acquire casual partners averaged eight per year. M. Xiridou et al, The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, AIDS 17 (2003): 1031. Thus, while same sex couples have no monopoly on outside sexual activity, the evidence is considerable that married heterosexuals better value and model sexual fidelity and exclusivity. It is highly likely that higher rates of household promiscuity would impact upon children. One study in the American Sociological Review acknowledged the political incorrectness of their finding of higher rates of sexual activity among children of homosexual households: We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children of lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activityThe adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste J.Stacey and T. Biblarz, (How) Does the sexual orientation of Parents Matter, American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179 3. Heterosexual unions respect the intrinsic differences of fatherhood and motherhood. There are intrinsic differences between what fathers and mothers are able to offer their children. While gratefully respecting the often heroic efforts made by lone parents, people do not usually enter into parenthood intending to be a single parent. All single mothers and fathers wish that they could still enjoy the complementary contributions of a spouse to the raising of their children. To suggest that fathers and mothers contributions to the raising of children are exactly the same is to dumb down sexual difference and complementarity. Legislative actions that seek to equate heterosexual unions with homosexual ones are creating a dangerous precedent. Such actions imply that to have both a father and a mother is an unnecessary duplication. They promote the idea that children do not need both a mother and a father. They also further encourage fathers or mothers to rationalise the abandonment of their children to the other parent thereby further increasing the number of single parents and the number of children in broken families. In the case of lesbian couples, children are without a father in the home. We know that fathers are very important for reducing both antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and early sexual activity in girls. Fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. As the journal Psychology Today reports: Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children. Shuttle Diplomacy, Psychology Today, July-August, 1993, p.15 A recent study of the effects of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up with an absent biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. Ellis, Bruce J., Bates, John E., Dodge, Kenneth A., Fergusson, David M., Horwood, L. John, Pettit, Gregory S., & Woodward, Lianne. Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy? Child Development, 74, 801-821. Relationships where homosexual men raise children deny children a mother. Everything that we know about mothers tells us that they excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. They also give their daughters the trusted counsel they need as they negotiate the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. 4. Lack of Evidence to Support Equivalence of Same Sex Parenting Some experts and professional associations have boldly asserted that there are no effects of single-sex couple parenting on children. But the studies to date have generally been undertaken by same-sex advocates and they all suffer from serious methodological problems. In a review of 14 studies of homosexual parenting, Belcastro et al reported that: All of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base. P. Belcastro et al, A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on 鱨վs sexual and Social Functioning, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105,106 In a further thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Lerner and Nagai, who are professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex parenting. They found little evidence to support the position that homosexual households are the same as traditional families: We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting. Their claims have no basis. Dr R. Lerner and Dr A. Nagai, No Basis: What the studies Dont Tell us 鱨վ Same-sex Parenting, (Washington Ethics and Public policy Centre, 2001): 6. Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by sociology professor Steven Nock, who was asked to review several hundred such studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada. Nock concluded: Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. *Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department. 5. Evidence in Support of Married Heterosexual Parenting In contrast, there is significant research in support of the position that children from married heterosexual two-parent households do better academically, financially, emotionally and behaviorally than children raised in other forms of relationships. One significant study reported in the journal 鱨վ Australia compared 174 children living in either heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting or homosexual co-habiting homes. The study collected information primarily from teachers and only secondarily from parents and teachers. (As such, it avoided the risk of bias on the part of parents who may been tempted to show how successful they are.) The study found that the children of married couples did the best in nine out of thirteen measures including language, mathematics, sport, sociability and attitude to school and to learning. The author concluded: Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of co-habiting heterosexual and homosexual couplesIn this study, married couples seem to offer the best environment for a childs social and educational development. S. Sarantakos, 鱨վ in three contexts: Family, Education and Social Development, 鱨վ Australia, Vol 21, No 3 (1996), 23 See also the following: Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45; Pat Fagan, "How Broken Families Rob 鱨վ of Their Chances for Prosperity," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June 11, 1999, p. 13; Dawn Upchurch et al., "Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse," Family Planning Perspectives 30 (1998): 121-127; Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and 鱨վ's Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54; Jane Mauldon, "The Effect of Marital Disruption on 鱨վ's Health," Demography 27 (1990): 431-446; Frank Furstenberg, Jr., and Julien Teitler, "Reconsidering the Effects of Marital Disruption: What Happens to 鱨վ of Divorce in Early Adulthood?" Journal of Family Issues 15 (June 1994); Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42. 6. Heterosexual married unions connect the generations and encourage extended social concern for children. Marriage between a man and woman also gives us an inter-generational connectedness. The individual becomes more attached to the wider society through their sensitivity to those who have gone before and who will come after them. Parents and grandparents labour so as to lay up store for their children and grandchildren and this contributes to the ongoing development of the society. Unions and relationships which are by their very nature and choice, non-procreative, are consciously directed towards the satisfaction of the immediate needs and wants of the persons involved. 7. Heterosexual marriage respects the good of children and calls parents to raise good citizens. The traditional purposes of marriage are the good of the couple and the procreation and education of children. Societies that do not support the concept of marriage as an exclusive and procreative relationship between a man and a woman are promoting human relationships as exclusively self-indulgent arrangements. Such a society chooses to live for the moment and is unconcerned with the raising and care of children; by default it is also less concerned with the raising of the good citizen'. A particularly insidious effect of stripping procreation from marriage is that it encourages an anti-child and selfish mentality. This impacts on the society through inevitable population decline. The result is increased economic and social pressures on the wider society and the creation of an unfair burden on future generations of wage earners. 8. Heterosexual married unions accept children as gifts and reject their treatment as commodities. The protection of marriage as a faithful and life-long union is important for the welfare of children. Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, describes the value of the intact married family thus: If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child. Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) p.38. Every child has the right to know that it exists as the fruit of a loving and human marital act between a man and woman who have committed to a faithful and exclusive union. A society which permits adults to treat children as optional extras that can be ordered in as required undermines that trust and reassurance which has been the normal experience of children. Same sex couples who desire children are treating them as a commodity to which they are entitled. In contrast, traditional marriage has always valued children as a gift created through a loving act of two complementary persons. Husbands and wives have always had the right to try to have kids, but not to demand them as an entitlement. 9. Marriage respects a childs desire for their biological parents. Same-sex couples who employ either IVF or surrogate mothers deliberately contrive to create children whose biological mother or father will be absent. Child Study Center psychiatrist Professor Kyle Pruett found that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: Mummy, what did you do with my daddy? Can I write him a letter? Has he ever seen me? Didnt you like him? Didnt he like me? Social scientist Elizabeth Marquardt, in her book The Inner Lives of 鱨վ of Divorce, reports that children of divorce often describe similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father. These studies indicate what we have always intuitively known: that children hunger for their biological parents. Hence, we should not deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their biological mother or father. Furthermore, we should not encourage persons to deliberatively contrive to have children so they can be handed over to others. Nor should we legislate to provide benefits which can encourage individuals to create and raise children in an environment where such children are deliberately estranged from one or other of their biological parents. Kyle Pruett. Fatherneed. Broadway: NY. 2000, p. 204. Elizabeth Marquardt. Between Two Worlds: the Inner Lives of 鱨վ of Divorce, Crown: NY, 2005. Conclusion Certainly many social institutions have a role to play in support of marriage and family but so has the law. To undermine the special status under the law of heterosexual marriage is to encourage a view of marriage as something which individuals, couples or even groups can alter according to their own subjective desires. We need to continue to preferentially support a civic institution that encourages authentic and enduring unions unions that reflect sexual complementarity; unions that value the importance of both fatherhood and motherhood; unions that have an openness to children and future citizens; unions that are intrinsically ordered to the care and education of their own children and unions which have an intergenerational connectivity that draws them beyond their own immediate needs and wants. In short, we need a culture that protects and supports by law and policy, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Any legislative changes which are proposed must not undermine that preferential and necessary support that is due to traditional marriage and family. The comments above are not simply based on empirical studies of the effects of different relationship and parenting models. They are drawn from the accumulated wisdom of thousands of generations across every culture, society and religion. This wisdom tells us that the most advantageous way to grow and nourish a society is through support for the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman who commit to each other and as parents, to any biological children they have. It is not just the latest sociological study or political tide. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Secretariat undertaking this inquiry. I would be happy to meet with any relevant persons to discuss the issue outlined above should that be useful. I can be contacted on 02 93905368 or by email on  HYPERLINK "mailto:marriageandfamily@sydney.catholic.org.au" marriageandfamily@sydney.catholic.org.au Yours sincerely, Christopher Meney Director, Marriage and Family Office Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Polding Centre, 133 Liverpool St, Sydney NSW 2000 cu   & ' J K L M  7 V W X ] H f k | 3 D K k m r ⚆~⚂hOQh>hIhkgqhhN7/hT>&h*hT>&h5CJ aJ hIhICJaJhIhI5CJaJhI5CJaJhIhN7/5CJaJhIh5CJaJhRKhD hdhdhdh hh14bL M N W X l m $^`a$gdmk$a$gdmkgd L]Lgd whr  > b tBK`fim~-8Bv}+49COjsĻķh[sh/h hghihbhIph 95CJaJh>h 95CJaJh)hh:hHBh =hL"hhjh>hRKhIh*>TU`ab!!###$p^p`a$gdmk $^a$gdmk $h^ha$gdmk $ & F a$gdmk$a$gdmk"*+x)6XOfxV]iwX]  )128IRSTAHMNbh hvhLnh`Ohch 9h h 6h[sh)h/h =h hiOb rz{|=XaSXYr)=B^_`abcԸ h@5h#hvs5CJaJh>h#5CJaJh(5CJaJhLnh)h 9h`Ohmkh h(h/hhh6hh =h h =6h`hvh 8cer  !t!v!!!!"## ##########˸}ucQ"h15B*CJOJQJaJph"h #:5B*CJOJQJaJphhW;qCJaJh| CJaJh@CJaJh=h=6CJaJh=CJaJh=h=CJaJhoCJOJQJaJh=h=CJOJQJaJh#h=hohAP$h[,hRYh@ hAP$5 he5 h(5 h5hZlh@5## $&(''(S)T)*,++\,,,.. 0 000 $^a$gdmk $@ ^@ a$gdmk $@ ^@ a$gdmk$^`a$gdmk $^a$gdmk$a$gdmk$a$gdmk## $ $#%B%D%H%t%%&&&&&&&&&&&&&&''''(''ǻtdWLh4 6h@CJaJh@6CJOJQJaJhQWh@6CJOJQJaJh8h#6CJOJQJaJh1h#6CJOJQJaJh#CJOJQJaJhQWh@CJOJQJaJhM8CJOJQJaJh@CJOJQJaJ(hQWh@5B*CJOJQJaJph"h=5B*CJOJQJaJph"h }5B*CJOJQJaJph''''')(*(?(n(((((#)R)S)T)))*,+J+t+++++@,Y,Z,[,·xmamYmUQMUMhKhchoh}YOJQJh?:h}Y6OJQJh}Yh}YOJQJh]CJaJh}YCJOJQJaJh}Yh]CJOJQJaJh]CJaJh@CJaJhiih@6CJaJh #:h@CJaJh@CJaJhQWh@CJOJQJaJhQWh@CJOJQJaJh@CJOJQJaJh]CJOJQJaJ[,\,i,p,,,,,,-.%.A.....0 0 020R00000000000P1[1j1w1žţ|xskfakZxx h #:h #: h(5 h15h=?6@$p^p`a$gdmk $^a$gdmk$@ ^@ `a$gdmk $^a$gdmk$a$gdmk$a$gdmkw11122222 3 3(3d3f3l33334(444M4X444444555#5.525P5x5555666F6P66677պshiihA 6OJQJhA hA OJQJhA CJaJhA hA 6CJOJQJaJhA CJOJQJaJh #:CJOJQJaJhK1h #:CJOJQJaJh(CJOJQJaJhM8CJOJQJaJhY h= h }h }h }h1hoh #:-77+7;7p77889!9"969@9J9l99::3:?:G:Q:T:c:::::::::::λ~n^n^h! hM85CJOJQJaJh! h! 5CJOJQJaJh! h[,5CJOJQJaJhH5CJOJQJaJhvs5CJOJQJaJh| hK1h #:h #:hM8 h4 6h #:h4 6h #:6OJQJh4 6h #:OJQJhY CJOJQJaJhK1h #:CJOJQJaJh #:CJOJQJaJ!:;;/;6;^;h;;;;;<`<?=@=U===>>>>>>>5 hH5h| CJaJh}7#6CJ]aJhcCJaJh}7#CJaJhchcOJQJhcCJaJhchcCJaJhcCJOJQJaJh1CJOJQJaJh1hg)6CJOJQJaJhg)CJOJQJaJh}7#h}7#CJOJQJaJh}7#hkgqCJOJQJaJ#?MaMfMOOOOOOOOQ4S6S7S9STS[SzSSSSpTqTU&VVWFWuWwW5XMX?YGY=Z>Z?ZAZZZZwkhi>CJOJQJaJhh)`hi>5 h1hi>hi>CJaJhuhi>6CJ]aJhuhi>CJaJhuhi>CJ]aJhuhi>CJaJ hLhi>5 hhV5 h3hi> hi>5hZlhi>5 hLn5 hH5h| hHh)shi>)6SSSqTVvWwW=Z>ZZv_``LdMdjfkfggggggg$a$gdmk^gdLn$a$gdLn $p^pa$gdmk $^a$gdmk$a$gdmkZZZZZZZ[[8[T[[[a\\\\\\B]r]]]]]]]^^9^^^^_/_0_E_F_G_b_m_u_v____``ɽɽɱzh4hi>5OJQJhi>OJQJhj'hi>6OJQJh4hi>OJQJhLnCJOJQJaJh@CJOJQJaJh!aCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhAhi>6CJOJQJaJhi>CJOJQJaJh$hi>CJOJQJaJ/````````^babib}bccccKdLdMdddseeeeeefjfpfqffff gg"g]g`gagjgkg~gggggggggg¾ººº²²βhhGh`7w0Jjh`7wU h`7wh`7wjh`7wUh`7whr/hnhLnhhVh =hLh9h)sh@h!ah| h`Ohyh5CJOJQJaJhyhy5CJOJQJaJ3gg!hAhchshthuhvhwh$a$gdmk$a$gdmk gghshthuhvhwh hh*hM8hahaCJOJQJaJhaCJOJQJaJheh,1h/ =!"#$% 'DyK )marriageandfamily@sydney.catholic.org.auyK `mailto:marriageandfamily@sydney.catholic.org.au@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH Z@Z  Heading 1$<@&5CJ KH OJQJ\^JaJ DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List\^@\ @ Normal (Web)dd[$\$B*CJOJQJaJph6U@6  Hyperlink >*B*phH@H 3 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJw`  z z z z z z z z zM(3y>6KXw`!^e 4bLMNWXlm  TU`ab ( S!T!",##\$$$&& ( ((((((((++-P../0"1222`4@56=76889:7;8;q;>@@DD?E@EGGGGG5K6KKKqLNvOwO=R>RRvWXXL\M\j^k^________!`A`c`s`t`u`v`y`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!Z!j!j!j!!!!Z!!j!j!!Z!j!!j!j!!!Z!j!j!j!j!j!!!!!!!!Z!j!!j!!!!!Z!j!!Z!j!!Z!j!j! !!Z!j !0!0!!!!!!! !!!!! !Z!j!j!!!!!j! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4bLMNWXlm  TU`ab ( S!T!",##\$$$&& ( ((((((((++-P../0"1222`4@56=76889:7;8;q;>@@DD?E@EGGGGG5K6KKKqLNvOwO=R>RRvWXXL\M\j^k^________!`A`c`s`t`u`v`y`00000000000000000000000000000 00 00 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000004bLMNWXlm  TU& ( (((((++-0"19:q;@D?E@EGGGqLNvOwO>RRXXL\j^u`v`y`00000000000000000000000000000 00 00h0 0 h004}h00h00 h0 0 h00"H]h00!h0 0 h0 0 h0 0 h0 0 h0 0 h0 0@00@00h00h00h00 h00 h00h00h0!0 h0!0 h00h0 0 h0 0h0 0h0 0h0 0h00h0,0 h00@0h0 000r bc#'[,w17:-@*D?MZ`gwh58:;<>?@BCDEGHJKM#06@6Sgwh69=AFILwh7j___w`X8@0(  B S  ?&BG BDG B|r Br Br B Q.4 Evn|g_j;f{ k։wfrpWw808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. frp{Wwf{ kgETZ+> Q.|g_ 8*.                                                                                |{I]V1  ! Y aGM8>vc5[ L"#}7#AP$ %&T>&3'j')g),-N7/r/9"2 [59 #:?:jO:@DAKAHBD?PgRRY}Y}[!a_h0Biiij)NllmLnIpW;qkgqor[s`7wlozy{@noqebRKhVy)s~=A #| > n_$`Oi(EHI$8vsK>`[,1OQk)sc =i>' d}*:4=g {F }hD c 9L3dmk/U>La@v`v`Qv`v`w`p@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qhFFKʪfQ `Q `24d`` 2QX)?20         Oh+'0x  ( 4 @ LX`hp Normal.dot4Microsoft Office Word@F#@2tI@hJ @hJ  Q՜.+,D՜.+,< px  ``  Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA40mailto:marriageandfamily@sydney.catholic.org.au  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fx% Data O1TableWiUWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F" Data O1TableWiUWordDocument.՜.+,D՜.+,< px  ``  Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA40mailto:marriageandfamily@sydney.catholic.org.auSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq