A commenter "Just a confused Catholic" asked about Archbishop Vincent Nichols' admission on Newsnight that Catholic agencies were happy to place children with single gay people, but not couples. He suggested that this undermined any argument about gay adoption and lost credibility for the church's position
As I understand it, some agencies say that from their experience, some older children who have had long experience of dysfunctional families do better in long-term care of a single person. (I am not qualified to comment on whether this is the case or not.)
In such a situation, it might be that a Catholic agency would place a child or teenager with someone whom they knew (through confidential assessment procedures, perhaps) to have some homosexual temptations but who accepted the teaching of the Church and lived chastely.
However, I cannot see how it would be possible for a Catholic agency to place a child with someone who defined themseves publicly as "gay", was regularly part of the gay "scene", was involved in sexually active gay relationships, or opposed the teaching of the Church.
One of the ambiguities in the recent public debate is that everyone is ignoring the statement in the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered." (n.2358) This means that it cannot be accepted by Catholics as a "good" or as just another way of being normal.
Without recognising this teaching, we are going to be trapped in a dialogue of the deaf because a person who regards being "gay" as "the way God made me" or as just another acceptable way of life will not be in the least bit placated by the Catechism's talk of "compassion and sensitivity" or of uniting their difficulties with the Lord's cross. Such talk will simply make them angry because they will see no need for anybody to be compassionate.
It seems to me that the way things are in England now, the "compassion and sensitivity" talk may not be as helpful as it is intended to be. Given the success of the gay movement in obtaining widespread acceptance in England, we are really in the position where we disagree about something fundamental to human nature. We might as well recognise that and debate it: there is no sense causing needless offence.
19 comments:
Dear Fr Tim,
I have to agree. I think good Catholics have been more than sensitive & compassionate & hopefully that has helped many with a homsexual orientation, 'accept their cross' & live holy lives. For the rest & open opposition to atholic teaching, we can remain silent no longer. As they are saying on the latest NACF CF News, if that means we are closed down or imprisoned then so be it.
I can see the scenario where moms & dads in Catholic families, are reported for explaining Catholic teaching on marriage.
In a way, a positive outcome of all this dissension, is that good Catholics stand united behind our Pope & are willing to stand up & be counted. I expect what i'm saying is that we 'come out!'
God bless,
Mrs Jackie Parkes MJ
Fr Finigan,
Thank you for your considered and helpful answer, just to clarify, I did not intend to give the impression that I thought the Churches position lost credibility, I fully support the teaching of the Magisterium, my inability to be an effective apologist was the problem, not the Church. However from experience I knew that the world would not appreciate or accept the subtlety and refinement of Her teaching. According to the news tonight it looks as though individual conscience has been sacrificed to political expediency and the onward march of the insatiable secular appetite continues devouring everything in its path. As Aldous Huxley's would put it “Take your soma, it’s a Brave New World”.
Anonymous - thank you for your comments. I'm interested in what you have to say - feel free to email me
I think part of the problem is that those members of the Hierarchy who deal with the press can't bring themselves to use phrases like "objective disorder" because of the obloquy they know will be brought down upon them by people who don't want to understand that an alternative point of view is potentially as valid as their own. It's the price we are paying for having media-savvy Bishops who have only been trained how to meet the media on its own terms, but who haven't learned how to force the media to understand what we believe. The death of Pope John Paul II was a clue to how Catholics can turn the media into a force for good; the "Gay Adoption" debate has shown just how ephemeral that triumph was.
I'm just wondering...do you have "Dignity" or "The Rainbow Sash" crowd in England?
Every Pentecost, the local "DIGNITY" and "Rainbow Sashers" put on rainbow sashes and stage a protest, which they say is not a protest, at the noon Mass at the Cathedral. Then they do what they can to steal the Holy Eucharist, or have someone else steal it and break Jesus into pieces for those who were refused Communion. Then they stand in their pews while everyone else kneels in worship, holding their cupped hands out in front of them in representation of their status as "second class citizens."
They say it's not a protest, and they apparently honestly believe that people are so stupid so as not to recognize a protest when they see one.
They don't see why it's a problem for someone to go forward to recieve Communion, then bring the Lord back to the pew, and share the consecrated host out to others who were refused communion, citing that it's not against the Law thus the Church can't do anything.
(Apparently Canon Law has not entered into the picture for them....)
A liturgist was in tears last spring begging the person with the Host to PLEASE PLEASE consume it!
Do you experience "non-protests" such as this also? It's becoming more and more widespread where we are, and this group obstinantly continues to define their own morality while demanding the "right" to recieve Communion even as they boast about their activities.
So the Cardinal wimps out again, but then he had already shot himself in the foot by his courting of Filichowski et al. When will we ever get a hierarchy with real backbone? Why does Scotland do so much better?
Every child of whatever age has a need to know, love and be raised by a mother and father. Whether you choose to believe this simple fact of life or not is totally irrelevant - THAT IS HOW LIFE IS SUPPOSED TO BE!
By deliberately placing children with homosexuals whether they be single, in a homomarriage or relationship, practicing homosex or not ANY AND EVERY child adoption agency is denying that child the right to a happier and better future.
'Woe to anyone who harms these little ones, better he ties a millstone around his neck and throws himself into the sea' - these are not my words.
Bishops - PLEASE STAND UP FOR JESUS AND BE COUNTED WHATEVER THE COST IN THIS LIFE. Please lead the faithfull, faithfully. It's time for plain speaking. The devil causes enough confusion let's not add to that from within our own ranks. Catholic teaching and Catholic practice MUST be consistent. Without consistency all credibility gradually turns to dust.
Our Lady of the Rosary - Pray for us.
I am really puzzled about this adoption issue, and would be grateful if Father Tim or someone out there could enlighten me. As I understand it, the law forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, so if you were employing a chef, it would be against the law to discriminate against them on the grounds that they had homosexual tendencies. And this would presumably tally with what the Catechism describes as 'unjust discrimination' against people with homosexual tendencies.
But surely when it comes to the adoption issue and homosexual couples, we've gone beyond orientation into the area of activity and lifestyle choice - and this brings with it moral implications, just as choosing to own a gas guzzler has moral implications. So why does a law concerned with sexual orientation apply in this area anyway? Isn't it trespassing beyond its remit? Thanks!
Anonymous - yes, I would agree that the law is trespassing beyond its remit. Unfortunately, the Cabinet doesn't seem to think so.
It is interesting too, that it is an abuse of process. The "Regulations" path for legislation is supposed to be used when the legislation is not controversial. Here it is being used to avoid a major public debate that would happen if the usual parliamentary process were used.
Adoro te - There is a group in the UK similar to Dignity, called Quest. They do not go in for public demonstrations of the sort you describe. They do not really need to because there aree two "Gay Masses" in London: one sanctioned by the ecclesiastical authority (I think that it is under the condition that they don't publicly oppose the teaching of the Church at the Mass). The other is not sanctioned but carries on anyway.
It is worth noting that desecration of the Blessed Sacrament incurs a latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication.
Dear Fr Tim,
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue.
I was extremely shocked to hear about the many sacriligious Communions. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes at the last judgement.
This Quest Group are kind of annoying. I just get this kind of image of Westminster Cathedral, & all hell being let loose around it.For sure we have the late Cardinal Hume, out at night making sure the homeless had a bed for the night, & then the present Cardinal, doing his utmost to keep his flock together.But also, we are engaged in a great spiritual battle, that i expect all of us have stories to tell.
O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,save us from the fires of hell. lead all souls to heaven,especially those most in need of thy mercy.
Can we all say a brief prayer for the conversion of some of these main characters..julian f..& the like?
God bless,
Mrs Jackie Parkes MJ
Thanks!
Fr. Finigan,
Thanks for the info. They have legitimate Masses for SSA folks here, too, but it's not enough...they don't want to hear about Courage and Encourage, about true compassion, about the fact that they don't have to define themselves by activities better not named....they want to demand that the Church bow to their practices and change her teachings so that they can be comfortable in doing what they know is wrong.
I'm glad you don't have the activists there that we have...and may God preserve you from them!
Adoro te devote is absolutely right. Whatever you offer these people is never enough! And the vast majority do NOT want to hear about changing their lifestyles.
It's all about destroying the Catholic Faith.
By the way adoro te devote - we don't really need those activists here in the UK because the government is doing a splendid job of enshrining their depravity in law!
george,
You're right - it IS all about destroying the faith, and they have loudly and proudly announced this as such. They see their "role" as "changing" the Church from the "inside."
I think the governments of the world have gone crazy; they ALL seem to be bent on legislating depravity into law.
As far as I know, we don't have in the UK the equivalent of COURAGE or ENCOURAGE- but we desperately need them.
However, we do have bishops (or at least 2 of them) who were happy to be seen celebrating the silver jubilee of the union of 2 well-known prominent 'Catholic' homosexuals - though of course it wasn't advertised that way. And the cardinal doesn't to be averse to having his photograph taken with at least one of them.
I really do think we need to storm heaven with prayers that our bishops will lead us in faithfulness to the Church's teachings and face down the politicians (it's not just the Government and, heaven knows, I'm no supporter of them).
There is indeed a dichotomy in the teaching of the Church as set out in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church".
On the one hand, gay people and those who know and respect them ('homophiles') find such expressions as 'grave depravity' and 'intrinsically disordered' frankly unacceptable.
On the other hand those hold strong anti-gay views ('homophobes') reject outright the teaching that 'they must be accepted with respect compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'
It seesm clear that both sides on this argument, to a greater or lesser extent, are not being faithful to the teaching of the Church. Yet the latter group are the most ferocious in their insistence on adherence to the teaching of the Church.
What is the answer to all this? As in so many things, honesty and charity are good starting points.
Perhaps it is for those in the my second group to give a lead and to demonstrate their adherence to the Church's teaching by practising acceptance, respect, compassion and sensitivity.
Alnwickian, thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Catholics who insist on adherence ot the teaching of the Church do not "reject outright" the idea that homosexuals should be accepted with compassion and sensitivity. However, there are many homosexuals who do reject the idea that there is any need for "compassion and sensitivity" since they argue that being homosexual is "the way God made me". This approach is strongly argued in the collection of articles "Opening Up".
Homosexual Catholics who accept the teaching of the Church would not find much opposition, even from traditionalist Catholics. Many such traditionalists would support the work of Encourage, for example.
I hope that the open discussion of these matters will help to clarify these issues and prevent any uncharitable name-calling or bullying.
God bless
Athansius - Encourage is the UK equivalent of the US Courage. It does exist in the UK but is fairly small.
I wrote about it back in June in a post entitled Catholic and homosexual?
Post a Comment