A student yesterday drew my attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph: Falconer refuses to exempt Catholics from new gay laws. Lord Falconer refuses to acknowledge the obvious conflict of "rights" that is at the heart of the widespread Christian opposition to these regulations. His approach seems to be deliberately confrontational and, if pursued, will place good and upright members of society on the wrong side of the law. All quite predictable so far.However, I have just realised that there is a "deal" being brokered. The Telegraph reports:
"Downing Street has proposed a possible compromise under which Catholic agencies could refuse to accept gay couples but would have a duty to refer them to agencies that would accept them."
Yesterday, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor sent a letter to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Here is the text of the letter. The Cardinal says that the Church is opposed to any unjust discrimination, summarises the relevant Catholic teaching on marriage, and says that it would be "unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics" if Catholic adoption agencies were required to place children with homosexual couples. Then comes the crucial paragraph: "Catholic adoption agencies have readily accepted their responsibility to provide an informative, sympathetic and helpful service to all those who enquire about adoption, whether or not they meet the agency's criteria for acceptance for assessment. Catholic adoption agencies welcome adoptive applicants from any or no religious background. Homosexual couples are referred to other agencies where their adoption application may be considered. This "sign-posting" responsibility is taken very seriously by all Catholic adoption agencies."I have grave misgivings about the Church accepting this utterly unnecessary and pointless compromise. If Catholic adoption agencies are exempted from the Regulations, and it is publicly known that they do not place children with homosexual couples, that is a clear enough "sign-post" and no homosexual couple would bother with them. They will know of other adoption agencies without having to be "sign-posted" by the Catholic Children's Society.
I cannot see that the compromise is anything other than an attempt by the Government to humiliate the Church by forcing it to be involved in material co-operation with homosexual adoption. If the argument is made that homosexual couples would in some cases not be able to find an adoption agency without the help of the Catholic Children's Society, then it would be formal co-operation and illicit in any case.
12 comments:
But the letter (and Archbishop Nichols' comments) indicate that this compromise (ie. referral of homosexual couples to other agencies) is already the current practice...
Father - I agree with your line. I've just sat through the 10.00pm BBC News (where there was a short contribution from the Cardinal) and BBC 'Newsnight', where Archbishop Nichols was interviewed opposite a Lesbian MP.
In my view, neither the Cardinal nor the Archbishop (even allowing for the vagaries of TV interviews and the anti-Catholic bias of the BBC) did justice to the Church's teaching.
Even allowing for the expectation that, in this anti-Christian country, our Catholic leaders might need to be seen to be willing to compromise, neither the Westminster incumbent, nor one of his potential successors, did justice to Catholic moral teaching. Each of them portrayed the issue as 'the Catholic Church says this...' Neither one of them had the courage to say 'I believe this...'
While I very much support the fact that our bishops seem to be publicly supporting Church teaching (maybe scoring them brownie points in Rome), their contributions (and the Cardinal's letter to the PM) don't seem particulalry convincing.
I would guess that most people in this country, even those opposed to any form of Faith commitment, know what the Catholic position is on moral matters and would expect the Church to seek exemption from the proposed legislation. My disappointment comes in the lack of ability of our national Catholic leaders to be able to clearly express the Church's teachings with conviction.
I'm not just a ranting, anti-episcopal, pew-filler. My children were adopted through the UK Catholic adoption agencies; I work for the Church in this country. I know what the situation is really about.
For those reasons, I feel that I cannot sign myself other than anonymously.
"The King's great matter" all over again...
What can we do to get our bishops to start emulating Cardinal John Fisher when the state tries to intimidate the Church?
I was interested to see the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York weighing in on the Catholic side here. (I'm trying to do a news round-up on my blog)
Anonymous
I can see where you are coming from but I think the line taken by the Cardinal and the Archbishop (and Lord knows, I'm no apologist for either of them) that it was "the teaching of the Catholic Church" struck me as right. They were making the point very clearly that this is not a matter of personal opinion or individual belief which the BBC interviewer could write off as a private matter with no place in public discourse but was the binding teaching of the Church. For once, I think they got it right.
Fr Tim, I can see where you are coming from regarding the "compromise". Unfortunately the pass was sold on this years ago with abortion (for doctors) and contraception (for pharmacists). I can see there being any likely manifestation of that rarest of species, the episcopal backbone, on this one.
I have just heard the interview with the Archbishop of York on Today, which is also summarized on the BBC News website. He says that Anglican teaching is 'absolutely' against discrimination, thus implying that the Catholic Church is pro discrimination. He says that the Anglican Church is not against homosexual orientation but considers that homosexual acts fall short of the glory of God, thus implying that Catholic teaching condemns both orientation and activity. So once again we have the nice tolerant CofE opposed to the nasty authoritarian Catholic Church! Could someone qualified put him right, please? And the BBC as well? Thanks!
Father, I'm suprised that you missed what Mac McLernon caught, i.e., that this compromise is already practiced by the Church, and seemingly without any external pressure from the govenment. This is surely a total disgrace and I can't see how it does not constitute at least a material sin. Further, if the government had an ounce of sense they would be pointing to this already sinful practice to indicate that Cormac has not a leg to stand on - perhaps then His Em would have to step back onto the sure rock of Catholic teaching, however unpopular this will be.
I was listening to the 'World at One' today on Radio 4 and they interviewed a 'Catholic' MP who condemned the hierarchy of trying to create a theocracy. He stated that he didn't have any problem with homosexual couples adopting and that it has put Ruth Kelly in an impossible position.
They also interviewed a member of staff a Catholic adoption agency in Manchester who said that her agency would allow a single homosexual adopt and that there would only be a problem if it was a homosexual couple applying. He stated that the reason for this was church teaching on the family and marriage. Well to me her agency sounds as though it is going against this by allowing single persons to adopt, homosexual or otherwise.
Father am I correct in thinking this?
Anonymous,
Whilst I am no longer an apologist for the Anglican communion, I do feel the BBC have misrepresented the Archbishop's sentiment here.
Liam, I think it depends on what is meant here by "homosexual". If someone agrees with the teaching of the Church, is not in a sexually active relationship and simply struggles a bit with homosexual temptations then that might be no problem.
On the question of single adoption: as I understand it, the agencies say that some older children who have been badly hurt within their family, can get on better being looked after by a single person.
From what you say, the person interviewed seems to be taking a legalistic view of "Church teaching." However, if the interviewer was trying to pose awkward cases, it could have been a difficult interview.
On this issue, we can expect determined attempts to find inconsistencies in the Church's teaching and to use arguments of the type that begin "So are you saying ...?
Catholic Emancipation UK: 1829 -2007
I think there is another issue here:
why are there so few sound catholic mps in the main political parties?
I would suggest that because those who have set the agenda in the church for the last 30 years have been too bothered about enpowering the laity to run the church than get involved in politics etc
regards
fr paul harrison
Post a Comment