Catholic Church in opposition to Equality Act
When the transitional assembly sought to defer the introduction of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, there was a concerted attempt to frame the debate within a particular, localised, context. In the end the vote was tied, and the motion fell, through the application of a controversial and recently introduced measure whereby a deceased MLA’s vote was cast against it. In England and Wales though, that localised context doesn’t apply, and it’s the Catholic Church which is leading the oppposition to the Equality Act, threatening the closure of their 12 adoption agencies unless they are granted an exemption from the provisions it contains. Update Related post hereThe Guardian report quotes the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman
Mr Blair’s official spokesman said: “This is an issue with sensitivities on all sides and the prime minister recognises that, and that is why it is worth having some discussions in government before we come to a decision”.
“The key thing we have to remember in all of this is the interests of the children concerned and that there are arguments on both sides.
“This is not a straightforward black-and-white issue. This is an issue where there are sensitivities on all sides and we have to respect those but equally find a way through.”
And the statement by Cardinal Murphy-O’Cormac
Cardinal Murphy-O’Cormac released a letter the church had sent to Downing Street, saying: “We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the government to insist that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service.”
Amimus “What is the real issue?â€
The real issue is that it is a ‘matter of conscience’. The liberal and homosexual lobby is trying to force its ‘belief system’ on the rest of us and to add insult to injury they want to use the law of the land to do so.
The issue is not ‘sexual’ equality but ‘belief system’ equality. It is strange how ‘liberal’ the ‘liberals’ are when they want to force their ‘beliefs’ on those who disagree with them!
The only ‘Christians’ who don’t are liberal in their theology and practice. And, since they don’t believe in the deity of Christ, miracles, the atonement, the resurrection etc etc etc they can hardly deserve to be described as truly Christian anyway.
Absolute gibberish, Way Icit. I can say the Nicene Creed without blushing; and I’m sure the risen Christ will be at my big fat gay wedding.
If you’re going to play the man, at least do it factually…
“Far from being irrelevant to the debate, Ruth Kelly is the Minister in charge of the department bringing forward the legislation.”
Ruth Kelly is responsible for bringing forward the legislation, but the legislation will be decided on by the cabinet, and let’s be realistic here, ultimately by Blair/Brown. Unless you have demonstrable evidence she is breaking from cabinet collective responsibility on this, her opinion is irrelevant.
As she runs the department, her performance is certainly up for debate. But we are not at that point yet, and whether or not she is in Opus Dei is still irrelevant.
“So less of the hinting at underlying attitudes, if you don’t mind.”
Sorry, I do. Let’s be clear on that the “Opus Dei” stuff is a dog whistle.
“And I’d also point you to the previous debate in the transitional assembly. ”
Yeah, like anyone in Westminister gives a stuff about what happens in assembly, nevermind a transitional one.
A matter of conscience which should not be paid for by the public purse! I agree it’s nothing to do with sexual equality. I don’t want to force my beliefs on anyone and I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to pick up the tab for my beliefs.
Take my possibly less inflammatory example: if children are beaten in school, is that a matter of belief? Yes. Should we all pay taxes for schools which allow children to be beaten? No. That’s why independent schools are set up. Let the same be done for religious adoption agencies.
Why is this so difficult to understand? In your facile attempts to decide who is a proper Christian and who is a liberal, you’re getting lost. As I said before, many people are happy to describe themselves as both.
Many gay couples wouldn’t dream of adopting, particularly from a religious agency. But if gays (who, like Christians, also pay taxes) want to adopt and are found suitable, they should be able to do so, if the agency is funded with public money.
Those opposing gay adoption on the grounds of what is in the best interests of the child should scroll down this Ruth Gledhill blog post and read about Fr. Martin Reynolds, an Anglican priest in South Wales with a Catholic partner, who are long-term fostering a severely mentally handicapped child.
Way Icit
I think you’re out to lunch on this one.
If you examine what gay advocacy has being doing over the years, it has not been about forcing their belief system on anyone (as if that would be possible) but have simply asked for equality under the law.
Not that it really matters, but I am not gay. I simply believe that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.
And if you counter with the argument that forcing christians to allow adoption of children by gays does hurt those christians, I am already on record as saying that they should not be forced to, just that they should not receive public funds.
Animus “I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to pick up the tab for my beliefs.â€
But, is that not exactly what is being proposed in this legislation as presently drafted! If you run adoption agencies the way we say you should (ie in accord with ‘my beliefs’) we will ‘pick up the tab’ – if you don’t, we wont.
It’s a duty NOT to discriminate, so it doesn’t really matter which nutty beliefs I may hold. It just so happens I oppose this particular discrimination. I constantly pay for things I don’t support. I cycle, but some of my income goes to roads. I don’t support the Iraq war, but my money goes to defence. I would not feel victorious if the Churches lose on this. But I don’t see why religious conviction supercedes all other considerations.
This whole furore is about Churches taking principled stances for all cases, without considering individual circumstances. A one size fits all approach does not work where individual children are concerned. I wonder how much of this is about creating new believers and how much of it is about guaranteeing that a child is best placed with people who can help the child succeed in life. Everyone seems to agree that two parents are better than one, but under Church regulations, single parents may adopt. Hmmmmm.
Kensei
“What a fucking inane and hateful comment. The same could be said of almost any organisation that didn’t fucking know they were serial killers. It is also stupidly beside the point. I could pull out any number of gay people that did bad things and it wouldn’t prove gay people are bad, or people couldn’t be taken in by them. Giving examples of bad hetrosexual people proves nothing either. ”
Don´t you think it´s wonderful that Nazi´s like Kensei are alive and well and standing up for our morals.
It´s clear the good Doctor was highlighting the hypocricy of the Catholic Church, and you as a practicing Catholic should be asking the Church when are they going to come clean about all the wrong doings, deportations, slave labour, and of course horrendous child abuse.
I know I am a victim.
“Don´t you think it´s wonderful that Nazi´s like Kensei are alive and well and standing up for our morals.”
I could cite Godwin’s Law, but no, let’s run with this. How exactly am I a Nazi? Please explain in great detail how you can compare me with an organisation that killed several million people for having the temerity to suggest that using the West’s as an example is both offensive and stupid. Please, go ahead, because I’m terribly, terribly interested.
I would of course like you to back up anything you say with evidence.
“It´s clear the good Doctor was highlighting the hypocricy of the Catholic Church, and you as a practicing Catholic should be asking the Church when are they going to come clean about all the wrong doings, deportations, slave labour, and of course horrendous child abuse. ”
I am of course concerned about child abuse scandals in the Church, and more accurately that the people involved (including those that covered up) are not being punished. Not entirely sure what I can do about it.
As for things that happened hundreds of years ago, I might ask the same of several Protestant Churches, several secular parties all around the world, descendents of planters and colonists, corporations etc etc etc. It won’t particularly help anyone.
“I know I am a victim.”
If it’s true, I’m sorry for you.
[You're repeating a point that has already been made, in a less inflamatory way. Try to keep to the actual ball and Read the commenting policy. - edited moderator]
Could we have an explaination please? Or is it just another case of partisan censorship?
And the above is a statement of fact, whether some like it or not.
Nice of Kensei to put a questionmark over that poor guy’s victimhood at the hands of a priest, too.
As happened for decades in Ireland throughout society when everyone knew what was happening.
“Nice of Kensei to put a questionmark over that poor guy’s victimhood at the hands of a priest, too.”
Never seen this poster before. Wouldn’t be the first time that someone has posted lies under a false name on the internet. And as his general tone made me question it.
But perhaps we should take things at face value.
I’m sorry about it. I think things should be in place to stop it happening again, and appropriate people punished. I’d still like explained how I am a Nazi.
Can we get back to the point of this thread?
Kensei – you aren’t a Nazi; it’s a throwaway insult and should be ignored. As for victims of the the Church’s servants, that is a serious, but separate issue.
Now the question is: whose conscience is most important? And do we automatically demure to righteous and religious or do we consider a more egalitarian approach which serves the needs of individuals rather than pandering to the whims of a few powerful “moral authorities”?
Kensei
sorry I have not replied to your OTT attack on my post, I get less time at the PC these days.
The point I was trying to make was that in the eyes of the church the West´s would have passed the first criteria whereas a gay or Lesbian couple would not even be considered.
Surely the question when adopting is the capability of that couple to support and raise that child….if the democratically elected govt. bring into effect these measures and any Church refuses to co-operate then they should leave the game.
Superstitions such as religion are becoming less important in our society, isn´t strange how Catholics and Free Presbyterians are strange bed fellows on this issue….(of course strictly platonic bedfellows).
Finally you where a bit rough with “a victim”, perhaps they where using an alternative non de plume, the person did not strike me as a troll.
Perhaps you should apologise.
“The point I was trying to make was that in the eyes of the church the West´s would have passed the first criteria whereas a gay or Lesbian couple would not even be considered.”
The point I was trying to make is that is a totally spurious point. I could point out a gay criminal that would get through your first criteria and go “Ha!”.
“Surely the question when adopting is the capability of that couple to support and raise that child….if the democratically elected govt. bring into effect these measures and any Church refuses to co-operate then they should leave the game.”
I agree. Did I not say that? I really thought I had.
“Superstitions such as religion are becoming less important in our society, isn´t strange how Catholics and Free Presbyterians are strange bed fellows on this issue….(of course strictly platonic bedfellows).”
Not really, they are both Christian Churches at the end of the day. Whether the Pope is the anti-Christ is irrelevant to a lot of the fundamentals. It isn’t the first time either.
“Finally you where a bit rough with “a victimâ€, perhaps they where using an alternative non de plume, the person did not strike me as a troll.
Perhaps you should apologise. ”
They come on about and compare me with Nazis and then the subsequent rant? While I know that’s normal for you, it did strike me as trolling and I wasn’t that rough.
Art,
Brilliant!
Great to have a prod intellectual posting.
Now brush your teeth, be a good boy and go to bed.
Kensei
I think the Nazi similarity from the poster was unfair, but you do come across as a very blinkered and aggressive person.
Perhaps you should sue a victim.