Experienced foster parents Eunice and Owen Johns have been told today that their beliefs are inimical to the interests of children. They were not willing to say that the practice of homosexuality was a positive thing. The landmark judgement of the High Court means that Christians who hold to traditional Christian moral teaching on sexual ethics are now not considered suitable foster parents in Britian. (See: article by the Christian Legal Centre.)
The Judges were obviously concerned to avoid being accused of discriminating against Christians and so they ruled:
That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefsIt seems that their Lordships want to rule on what we ought to believe as Christians. Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre is right when she says that
"Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance against religious belief."In fact, after today's ruling there is no logical reason why social services departments should not home in on Christian parents and take their children away for having beliefs that are inimical to them in the weird and twisted world of modern British equality law.
12 comments:
This is terrifying. And not 6 months after Cameron publically told the Holy Father at the end of his visit, that he had made the British nation 'think'. Oh really?
they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs
As an attorney, I see my fair share of fulsome legal reasoning. But this has got to be one of the more outlandish statements I've seen. Certainly the precedents would clearly establish that "moral views" and "[religious] beliefs" are not distinguishable terms.
Just come out and say it: the court ("High Court"? What on earth did Labour do to the English judicial system?) finds that orthodox Christianity does not meet the pertinent legal criteria. That would be no less vicious and much more intellectually honest.
Father
Our sentiments are the same. On only one minor point may I dissent? A child passing into and out of the care of foster parents should not have radically different views of what is acceptable to adapt to. Were the children to be passed to a gay couple for adoption then it would be a challenge for the children if they had been led to believe that couples should not be of the same gender.
Sadly that means that foster parents must have only the currently acceptable range of views.
Of course if adoption agencies were allowed to recognise that children benefit from having a mother and a father then we need have none of this nonsense.
I think that Blair has much to answer for.
There does seem to be a problem here. In the recent podcast from Fr Z about the CDF's document about civil partnerships etc, he and they stress that the prohibition of homosexual actions is grounded in natural law and is attainable by reason. Which would seem to take it out of the realm of religious belief.
Is this right? And if so what are the civil and legal implications?
All I can say is, we Yanks are probably not all that far away from seeing such things ourselves.
Perhaps Christians should take atheist foster parents to court for teaching their kids that God does not exist, which is contrary to both natural reason and sound faith, and harmful to the common good.
@Pater: Presumably social workers make an effort to put children where they're going to feel most at home. Good foster carers will try to do the same. What potentially awkward situation will this ruling prevent that couldn't have been solved with a little common sense?
Juventutem - yes, we do believe that certain ethical norms are accessible to human reason unaided. However the natural law is confirmed by revelation and forms part of the Christian faith. In the case of homosexuality it would certainly be a religious belief of the Johns that the bible teaches that homosexual acts are sinful.
We Catholics have forgotten the teaching of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII. To quote from the last of these,
"One must not forget the essential insufficiency and weakness of every principle of social life which rests upon a purely human foundation, is inspired by merely earthly motives and relies for its force on the sanction of a purely external authority. Where the dependence of human right upon the Divine is denied, where appeal is made only to some insecure idea of a merely human authority, and an autonomy is claimed which rests only upon a utilitarian morality, there human law itself justly forfeits in its more weighty application the moral force which is the essential condition for its acknowledgement and also for its demand of sacrifices. It is quite true that power based on such weak and unsteady foundations can attain at times, under chance circumstances, material successes apt to arouse wonder in superficial observers. But the moment comes when the inevitable law triumphs, which strikes down all that has been constructed upon a hidden or open disproportion between the greatness of the material and outward success, and the weakness of the inward value and of its moral foundation. Such disproportion exists whenever public authority disregards or denies the dominion of the Supreme Lawgiver, Who, as He has given rulers power, has also set and marked its bounds. Indeed, as Our great predecessor, Leo XIII, wisely taught in the Encyclical Immortale Dei, it was the Creator's will that civil sovereignty should regulate social life after the dictates of an order changeless in its universal principles; should facilitate the attainment in the temporal order, by individuals, of physical, intellectual and moral perfection; and should aid them to reach their supernatural end. Hence, it is the noble prerogative and function of the State to control, aid and direct the private and individual activities of national life that they converge harmoniously towards the common good. That good can neither be defined according to arbitrary ideas nor can it accept for its standard primarily the material prosperity of society, but rather it should be defined according to the harmonious development and the natural perfection of man. It is for this perfection that society is designed by the Creator as a means."
In a way, I am glad to see that basic moral principles are not conflated with faith, since they are a matter of natural law, and this is open to reason (though Revelation illuminates the natural law).
If the discussion can be based on natural law, we have some hope of convincing the legislature of our case.
The problem is that there is widespread confusion about morality. A common view would be that it is merely an emotional response or to be determined entirely by the individual or by the majority.
Likewise, faith is viewed as entirely subjective, a matter of personal opinion. Even judges are not immune to this conditioning. There is a danger then that the Church's position will be dismissed as 'merely' a matter of religious belief ('irrational' etc.).
It would be important to get across to legislators and judges that such assumptions are by no means to be taken for granted.
The last paragraph of Father's post may come true. It is a terrifying prospect. If we don't pray and reverse this decision through parliament it will only be a matter of time. There is already a branch of thinking in Dawkins' movement to explicitly equate bringing children up religiously with child abuse.
Regarding brother Lew's comment about Christians turning the tables.
It brought to mind the plight of the Catholic Scottish grandparents who were caring for their grand daughter and grandson, since their daughter was rendered incapable due to substance abuse. As I understand it, the consequence of them seeking information from the local authority (about what assistance they may avail themselves of, in order to aid them in their service to their family) resulted in the children being placed, against the families wishes, with a homosexual couple (males)when it was clearly documented with social services, that the young girl had problems with being cared for by men (possibly due to previous abuse).
Surely it would have been easy enough to respect the moral views of the family and place the children with a married heterosexual couple at least. However an issue was made by actually acting contrary to the wishes of the family, in the name of equality. Surely this is discrimination.
It could not be considered acting in the best interest of the child, since the young girl had a problem with men. Thus this action would deliberately cause psychological harm to the child.
It would seem that homosexuals do not simply have equal rights, but that their rights take precedence over anyone elses.
How can this be good for society? There would be no society if everyone deviated from the sexual norm in this way. There is the natural law for a reason!
Post a Comment