Exemptions for Catholic adoption agencies
I felt sorry for Ruth Kelly over her child's schooling furore - just because Labour aim for state education to be the equal of private doesn't mean it actually is, or that somebody should support it at the expense of their child, imho - but trying to get Catholic adoption agencies excluded from anti-discrimination laws is just appalling. They'd rather close down than place children with same-sex couples? These people are charged with looking after children - how dare they behave like that! Can you imagine their reaction if an adoption agency refused to give children to Catholic families1? There's no basis for their argument other than scripture, and that's no way to decide anything.
It's blackmail, and puts the government into a horrible position. It's all very well my and other secularists saying that in the long term it's better for everyone, as well as being morally correct, but that doesn't help the kids in the system now who would be negatively impacted. It's hard to believe that the Catholic Church's apparent obsession with harmless sex trumps their concern for children's welfare, but if they follow through with the threats it seems to be a logical conclusion. Ophelia and Antonia are worth reading. Harry's Place have a piece on a Muslim police officer refusing to have body contact with male colleagues that touches on similar issues:
People must realise that while it is fine to hold beliefs that restrict their behaviour, it is not up to the rest of society to accom[m]odate those self-imposed restrictions. If you want to limit your range of action and interaction, then you have to accept that [there] are consequences for yourself that you cannot transfer to other people.
Quite. I'm always intrigued by the dividing line. If I, as a Pastafarian, demand to converse only in pirate-speak, I'd obviously get kicked out of the police without a moment's hesitation. But how many people do I need to convert before I go from raving loon to man with beliefs deserving of respect2? Hundreds? Thousands?
Happily, the press reports seem to indicate that the rest of the Cabinet are sensible enough to reject the exemptions. Do you think that twenty years from now we'll have trouble believing his debate ever happened?
- on the basis that it's bad for the children to be exposed to insane views on homosexuality, presumably. Hmmm. Interesting. [↩]
- in the eyes of a hundred Comment Is Free columnists, anyway [↩]
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
January 22nd, 2007 - 20:25
The most ridiculous single thing I heard about this was someone saying that the catholic adoption agencies would sometimes place a child with a single gay person, but not with a couple.
First of all, isn’t a single parent always going to find it harder to raise a child than a couple, regardless of gender or sexuality? Secondly, what happens if that parent meets someone? Do they have to give the child back if they start going out with someone?
I’m sure a passing Jesuit would be able to find the right sophistry to explain it.
January 22nd, 2007 - 23:11
I didn’t know that…good grief.
January 24th, 2007 - 09:15
There was no threat from the Cardinal; the truth is, it is the government which would close the catholic adoption agencies if they refused to consider homosexual couples; that is the madness.
January 24th, 2007 - 10:25
Your argument makes the assumption that the legislation that would result in the closure of adoption agencies is wrong, but I see nothing to back this up. Please try again.
January 24th, 2007 - 11:55
My understanging is that the agency works on behalf of prospective parents and that prospective paretnts have a multitude of agencies to select from when aiming to adopt. The agency in effect operates like a lawyer in trying to get through the bureaucracy for the prospective parent. How would it be reasonable to say to a lawyer that he must accept any case that is offered to him in a free society
IE Is a catholic lawyer obliged accept a case for argue for abortion even though he has personal convinctions against it or for a civil liverties lawyer to represent a client from the BNP simply in name of anti-discrimination.
In all of these cases there is a lot of choice in the system
January 24th, 2007 - 12:07
Goodness yes. These black people can go find somebody who wants them, that’s what I say. Did I say black? I meant gay. Whatever.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that a lawyer’s job is to argue the law, right? And it’s perfectly reasonable to refuse to represent somebody who you think is guilty, right? So if the BNP client from the BNP had done nothing wrong, a civil liberties lawyer’s job is to represent him, surely? Same with abortion. If you can’t provide a good reason for your ‘personal convictions’, I don’t see why you should be allowed to skip out on your duties. If you can’t do the job, don’t do the job.
January 24th, 2007 - 17:28
Brian Lynch- Lawyers are not entitled to turn away work generally on the basis that it conflicts with their religious or other beliefs.
April 13th, 2007 - 01:27
“There’s no basis for their argument other than scripture, and that’s no way to decide anything.”
That’s not quite true. The Catholic argument stems from Aristotle’s Natural Law, which basically states that everything has a purpose and that it is wrong to contravene that purpose. To phrase it more positively, personal fulfilment can only be reached if you live in accordance with your purpose – or vocation, as Catholics call it.
In Catholic eyes, marriage is a vocation – a calling. It’s not a career choice and having children is not a ‘right’. It’s a gift, and children certainly can’t be covered by a ‘provision of goods and services’ act. According to Catholic thought, marriage is sanctified by the mutual complementarity of man and woman, including the privilege of sharing in God’s work of procreation. It can’t be said that marriage is a natural part of a gay person’s fulfilment. This doesn’t make gay Catholics inferior or mean that they can’t be personally fulfilled – only a culture where lonely hearts columns, blind date services, and even professional matchmaking agencies abound could see it in that way.
If you enrol your child in a religious Catholic school, presumably you expect to play by Catholic rules to some extent. You know that the students will inevitably be holding May processions in honour of Mary and attending a weekly Mass. If you don’t want that, don’t send your chidren to a Catholic school. And if you don’t agree with the Church this issue, don’t go to one of the country’s twelve Catholic adoption agencies. Go to one of the one hundred and seventy-six other organisations that are in operation.
Regarding the issue of single parents, Catholic agencies hardly ever place children with lone carers. They do it only in very exceptional circumstances – usually if a child has been so severely sexually abused that he or she is unable to live in the same house as someone of the same gender as the abuser. When a child does go to a single parent, the agencies make sure that there is someone of the opposite sex who will be able to act as a positive role model. And their overall strategies seem to be working – only four per cent of children placed by Catholic agencies have to be rehomed, as opposed to ten per cent of children placed by local authorities. It is also a universally acknowledged fact that those twelve Catholic agencies have found good homes for a disproportionate number of disturbed or behaviourally challenged children. The loss of these agencies is going to hit hard.
April 13th, 2007 - 11:24
Even if that’s true, it’s still not a justification for anything. It’s not like there’s any logical reason to believe “everything has a purpose and that it is wrong to contravene that purpose”, it’s just something somebody made up, and no reason for anybody to pay it any attention whatsoever. If I misrepresented the basis of Catholic beliefs then I apologise, but it’s not like there’s no implication of a behind the scenes deity controlling said purposes.
“According to Catholic thought” is where the argument falls over. You have to back this up with something. According to my thought, marriage should only be between white people. I’m going to set up adoption agencies that only give children to white people. Is that reasonable? The onus is on the Catholic church to provide reasonable justifications for their exclusions of gay couples that doesn’t simply amount to ‘we just want to’ (which to everybody else sounds a lot like ‘we don’t like gay people’). It is entirely unreasonable to expect society to adapt its rules on the basis of your unjustified beliefs. Discrimination against somebody on the basis of their sexuality is simply wrong, and you can’t get around it by invoking deities, or saying ‘go somewhere else if you don’t like it’. If people can’t provide logical reasons for their behaviour, *especially* when it’s something as important as finding good homes for children, they have no business being involved in that area in the first place, no matter how genuine their beliefs might be.