Tuesday, January 23, 2007
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 here
The 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.”
Pete Baker @ 01:48 PM
Where are the Lions when needed most?
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 02:43 PMBoo hoo. The number of children available to adopt is decreasing year on year, in part thanks to the decreasing influence of the Catholic Church in stigmatising young women ‘in trouble’. The Church has enjoyed the fruits of discrimation long enough.
Most agencies would try to put a child with a mixed-sex couple, because the best interests of the child means that it is usually preferable to place a child with a straight couple (if only because society remains homophobic.)
How many gay couples are knocking down the doors of Catholic adoption agencies demanding babies? Or is like the spurious example of the Christian bookshop owner terrified that gays will patronise the bookshop?
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 02:50 PMI find it a bit rich that an organization which has been exposed world wide to be riddled with pedophiles would have the gall to try and preach morals to the rest of us.
They need to clean up their own act first.Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 02:54 PMAnimus: the best interests of the child means that it is usually preferable to place a child with a straight couple (if only because society remains homophobic.)
There is more to it than society’s homophobia. Even if everyone successfully completed a political correctness reeducation camp, it would still appear that nature has a preference for two parents, one of each gender. Scientific fact is not the subject of debate on political grounds, and if the science is clear that children need mothers (higher pitched voice or whatever it is) then we should all respect that. Young babies can’t be told to bond to two fathers unless nature really has wired their brains for it.
We need some actual science here, and as far as I’m aware the research has confirmed that a mother is pretty much required to maximise the chances of successful childhood.
Then again, two homosexual parents is probably better than none. So this is a messy issue, even if you totally ban religiously inspired discrimination.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 03:16 PMI said “if only” not “only because”. I agree that it is probably preferable to have two parents of different genders. But let’s not go too far down that road. Science shows that breastfeeding is healthy for mother and baby and many mothers choose not to breastfeed. Should we force them, in the interests of science? Should we force couples to register for parenthood to prevent bad parents from reproducing?
It is usually in the best interests of a child to stay with biological parents. However, in adoption cases, there are special cirumstances. For example, the best ‘parents’ are actually the grandparents, who would be too old to qualify for most adoption. There are exceptions which try to guarantee the best placement for the child.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 03:39 PMAnimus,
Indeed - I agree with all you’ve said. My message was more intended for the general reader here, to make sure they’re are aware of the need to consider all facts.Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 03:48 PMLet me try to explain the Canadian position on this.
The major impetus for same sex couple adoption here has come from lesbians. If a straight or gay couple come together bringing children into the relationship, the non-biological parent has no rights to decide on, for example, medical care for the children (should the biologial parent become incapacitated) unless the non-biological parent has gone through the legal adoption process. Let me repeat, this applies to straight parents as well as gay or lesbian couples.This (to my mind) unreasonable position led our Supreme Court to rule that same sex couple adoption was unwarrented discrimination.
I think that some people, when thinking about same sex couple adoption, think that this is a charter for two men to adopt a boy so that they can sexually molest the child.
Utter balderdash, adoption agencies do extensive background checks before they will allow a child to be adopted.
I agree that it would be better for a child to have both a father and a mother, but given the circumstances I described above (ability to decide what is best for the child), same sex adoption should not be automatically denied.Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:08 PMThe Facist,neo-con Catholic message is one of
“Two parents of same gender being best for the child”
what do they say to one parent families?
My term facist is based upon the fact, that current Pope, Benidict Ratzinger is a self confessed youth member of the Nazi party and the fact about his involvement in covering up child abuse during his tenure as chief investigator of child abuse during the 80’s.
Rat’s excuse for being in the Nazi party is
“Everyone was doing it in Germany”
Oh, so what do we tell young islamic muslims when they become extreme?
“It is ok you will grow out of it”
Leopards don’t change their spots.
As for the Primate Catholic head honcho of Britain Cormac Murphy O’Connor, he was the guy who moved a self confessed child abuser Priest to Gatwick airport parish where this Priest went on to comitt further acts of indecency against children.
If the Catholic church is so concerned about the family unit, why are Priest banned from marrying?
There is nothing in the Bible about celibacy.
The real reason is the Catholic church is afraid of women
Those who live in the biggest glass house in the world should not throw stones !!
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:24 PMJoeCanuck “..this is a charter for two men to adopt a boy so that they can sexually molest the child.”
The implication of your statement is that only men are capable of molesting a child. Not true, women are equally capable of molesting children.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:31 PMAaron McDaid “We need some actual science here, and as far as I’m aware the research has confirmed that a mother is pretty much required to maximise the chances of successful childhood. “
Ideally children should be brought up in a home with a mother and father, a male and a female – it is the synergy of the two relative to the child which makes it most conducive. That is why even where there is a separation or divorce that both parents should have equal parenting opportunity with the children, despite the challenges in arranging this.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:40 PMI totally agree Way Icit.
I was simply trying to expain what I have met in conversations with many people over the years.
There is an apparent belief that it is more likely that homesexual men are more inclined to pedophilia tham homosexual women.
As you say, not true.
It doesn’t detract from my argument that there is no more risk to a child from being adopted by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual couple.
Some adopted girls are sexually abused by their adoptive father etc.
Hopefully, adoption agencies investigations minimize that likelihood.Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:43 PMSeems pretty straight forward to me.
The government can tell the Catholic Church to sling their hook and they then close down their 12 adoption agencies.
The British government can then set up 12 of their own.
However, if the government want the Catholic Church to remain involved in the adoption process then they have to take their concerns on board.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:51 PMHowever, if the government want the Catholic Church to remain involved in the adoption process then they have to take their concerns on board.
The govt do want the Catholic church involved all the time Neo-con Tony Blair is Primate Minister.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 04:53 PMjoeCanuck: There is an apparent belief that it is more likely that homesexual men are more inclined to pedophilia tham homosexual women. As you say, not true.
My guess is that it is true. Got any research either way? Now if you said homosexual men versus heterosexual men, that’d be more controversial (and for what it’s worth, by uneducated guess is they’re little different).
Women are of course capable of great evil, but I’d guess it rarely involves directly sexually abusing a child.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 05:34 PMThe Catholic church dare not try and use the potential of child abuse to back up their argument because of their history.
Brit Primate minister Blair is going to try and fudge this issue along with Ruth Kelly, the manly masculine, Orsen Wells voiced former education minister.
Some kind of supposed compromise will be found giving the evil Catholic church an exemption.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 05:49 PMHmm lets see the self righteous brigade is out again.
If we can accept their way of life surely they can accept that you can’t have children by two men or women having sex.
Children are brought into this world by people of the opposite sex having intercourse.
PC gone mad.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 05:56 PMUm, actually Fra, science has moved on. You can now have children without having sex at all. A woman can get IVF treatment and never have the involvement of the ‘father’ at all.
PC gone mad? What century are you living in? It’s not all fairytales for many kids. Marriages break down; unplanned pregnancies happen. Many children aren’t raised by both parents but social services don’t need to intervene, so let’s get real. Kids put up for adoption are frequently disabled or have serious emotional problems. Are you suggesting that these children are better off in a care home as one of many kids rather than being taken in by a loving family (gay or straight) who have been judged competent by the extremely rigorous process of determining their fitness.
I can accept religious people’s viewpoints, but I don’t see why we have to defer continually to religion, as if it should be special to everyone for reasons they can’t nail down. It’s a mythology and should be treated as one of many viewpoints, but not the only one and certainly not one which supercedes all others.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 06:08 PMI think that one element of governmental spin on this issue, repeated in the above blog, does require correction.
It is not the Catholic Church in England and Wales which is “threatening” to close down its adoption agencies in defiance of government policy.
It is the government, with its proposed new policy to withdraw public funding from agencies whose religious sensibilities prevent them from giving children to gay couples for adoptive care, which is threatening to force closure by economic necessity.
The government threatens. The church points out the consequences of that threat becoming reality.
(Shome difference, shurely?)The open letter published today from the Catholic Primate in England and Wales effectively declares war on this issue with the government.
My betting is on the cardinal to win by a length, and I do imagine that the faith institutions of the protestant, muslim and jewish religions will be cheering his eminence to the finishing line. He has already had ample demonstration of Lady Paisley’s support in the Upper House.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 06:30 PMEach year thousands of children are born and the suitability of the parents is not examined. This is not to say that this should be the case for children needing adoption - but it’s a relevant contextual fact the high-minded and the religious need to keep in mind. It’s important not to loose sight of the ball and JoeC’s comments about the RC Church and its history of abuse should caution Cardinal Murphy.
The RC Church showed utter disdain for the integrity of the family through protecting paedophiles. What position it takes today needs tempered by the facts that its moral position on what they believe to be the only correct way of developing children they themselves violated. The Church has since negotiated a deal with the Irish State that limits their liabilities for the damage they caused.
If Cardinal Murphy doesn’t want to evaluate the suitability of parents to bring up children (without also inquiring about what they like to do in the privacy of their own home and between consenting adults) then I for one will not miss their decision to exit the field.
Those who decide where to place children in need of adoptive parents should consider the quality of the parenting they can provide. This should have nothing to do with the sexual preferences of the parents – unless it can be shown to be a risk to the child. Most children don’t have this intervention and most sexual abuse occurs in families. Some naturally born children end out in dreadful circumstances – perhaps the RC Church would be better focussing on this problem. I’m sure that many same-sex couples will make wonderful parents – when this is offered it is only this quality that is relevant.
The state has a role it can’t avoid in adoptions – it should ensure the quality of the parenting offered is the only thing guiding the decision. If Cardinal Murphy doesn’t like that – fine. Frankly, the more distanced the RC Church is from children the more comfortable I feel – and I’m Catholic born!
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 06:46 PMI do imagine that the faith institutions of the protestant, muslim and jewish religions will be cheering his eminence to the finishing line
The Church of England (minus a minority of its Bishops like the appropriately named Nazi-r Ali) and the Board of Deputies of British Jews both support the SORs.
Wrong!
PS - his eminence is not the one making the running on this issue, and probably just as well given his own history with paedophile priests. The Archbishop of Birmingham has been doing the heavy lifting work and guess why? Cormac isn’t going to be in Westminster much longer; Vincent wants to be the next Archbishop of Westminster (and he’d like a red hat with it) and is using the issue to show his red-blooded virility to the new boss in Rome. Learn to join the dots folks.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 07:16 PMThere appears to a be a great deal of confusion of the issue among the comments above.
A confusion of the political with either sympathy for, or antipathy towards Catholicism, or at least the recently exposed sexual predatory of children by Catholic clergy.
I have worked at the coal face of attempting to rescue children from adult abuse for a decade. I have also worked with the leading support agency for HIV/AIDS infected people and with those seriously, if belatedly, attemptempting to give succour and, I think foolishly, if valiantly, attempting resolution in the Great Lakes region of Africa (that’s Uganda, Rwanda etc.)
The issue before parliament is not an issue of rights of children and, in that sense, is a denial of the rights of the child. It attempts to make rights for putative adoptive parents.
This right is so far out of acceptance in the practice of progressive family law as to be considered simply “mad or bad”. The rights of the child are always deemed paramount. Ask any badly done by middle class dad whose wife absconded with the house, car and nubile gardener plus ÂŁ100k pa alimony and limited visiting rights (of which I am not one).
The issue at hand is this: whether or not the government will cease funding those agencies who will not consider approving gay couples as adoptive parents for the children they hold in care.
This is the battle that the Catholic Church in England and Wales has entered against the Westminster government.
It is one I think they will win.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 08:07 PMI am not an RC and have serious theological differences with them. However, the core concerns of the RC church deserve proper debate and not a lot of irrelevant red herrings which do not take the debate forward.
The core issue is that most Christians in general and the RC church in particular have serious moral, ethical and practical concerns about this matter, which they believe in all good conscience. The issue is not that homosexuals should be treated as especially sinful people, or at least no more so than heterosexual people, but the belief that God has set certain boundaries of behaviour which we cross at our peril.
Christians are not seeking to impose their standards on society but equally society should not recklessly try to impose its standards on Christians, their families or community.The core questions here are (1.) are there personal issues of conscience which society and the state should respect, and 2. is this such an issue? Let us focus our minds on these questions – not on the red herrings.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 08:11 PMWay Icit
I agree that the state should not have the ability to force religions to adopt children with those families that that church deems to be inappropriate, no more than they should have the right to force ministers of any religion to participate in same sex marriages if they don’t want to.
However, the state has a right, duty even, to refuse public spending on groups that indulge in (justified in their eyes) discrimination.Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 08:35 PMThe issue is not that homosexuals should be treated as especially sinful people, or at least no more so than heterosexual people, but the belief that God has set certain boundaries of behaviour which we cross at our peril.
Oh, if that were true then the Catholic church would use its billions on the poor and not demand tribute from its parishes.
The Catholic church would get rid of its art collections and use that money helping the poor and disaffected.
The teachings of Christ have been ignored by the Catholic church for centuries, they cherry pick what teachings suit them.
The Catholic church collect 5/6 billion dollars every year in America alone, what happens to this money?
The Roman Empire fell in 470 AD only to be replaced by another Roman empire, the Catholic church, gangsters incorporated.
The usual suspects of self rightous terorist Christians who normally spout their evil doctines are unusually silent on this thread, wonder why, they cannot defend the indefensible?
This is just another example of the Christian Church trying to worm their way back into politics.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 08:50 PMjoeCanuck “the state has a right, duty even, to refuse public spending on groups that indulge in (justified in their eyes) discrimination.”
A technical right yes – but are Christians not also taxpayers and therefore entitled to funding the same as others who hold a different view?
Having said that, I think Christians should fund such agencies themselves even if Government refuses to help. I think Christian organisations depend too much on state funding which invariably has strings attached. In such instances, keeping an eye on the State can take higher priority than keeping an eye on the Lord!
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 08:58 PM
