How is it that when it comes to gay adoption and Catholic charities, ‘being Catholic’ is a conflict of interest but ‘being gay’ is not? A notable journalistic exception was Matthew Parris, usually a critic of Catholicism, who pointed out the sheer lack of proportionality from the opponents of the Church’s position and asked how much of a problem this would really have presented in the first place. How many gay couples would want to approach a Catholic adoption agency in any event?
So much for the way the debate was conducted, but what was it actually about? Not, primarily, homosexuality, nor fundamental human rights. At heart, this debate was about conscience.
After all, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Muslim Council have not been calling for a ban on gay adoptions. What they have said is, ‘You do what you want as a society. That’s part of the democratic process. But we are not able to do this for reasons of conscience. Since this is so, we ask for a space for people who cannot in conscience participate. Why do we need this space? Because we are part of this society, and we want to continue providing what everyone sees as a first-class service for society’s most deprived children — something we have done with distinction for over a century.’ That’s what the Cardinal and others have been arguing. And we have found, in the last few weeks, that this is something the anti-discrimination fundamentalists cannot contemplate. It has been amazing to observe the intolerance of those who have been so loudly crying for tolerance.
You may say that this doesn’t affect you. But it does. There are very serious issues here. The democratic process is being by-passed and legitimate views marginalised. Where will our society end up when compromise is not even discussed?
The question is simple: is any politician who is Christian, Muslim or Jewish — or indeed of any faith —to be vilified for believing their faith’s teaching? The answer from the fundamentalists is ‘Yes’. It’’s happened already with Ruth Kelly. And it’’s happened in Europe. Three years ago Rocco Butiglione —— renowned as one of the most thoughtful politicians in Italy —— was vetoed as Italian European commissioner by a militant alliance of gay activists and pro-abortion advocates because he held mainstream Christian views on family life. What if your Christian, Muslim or Jewish sons and daughters want to take part in the political life of their country or of Europe? Are they to be told effectively to hang their religion and conscience at the door or abandon any hope of advancement?
Let’s be more practical. What about Catholic doctors who will not refer women for abortions? What about the surgeons who will not perform them? At present there is a conscience clause, but many within the NHS wish to remove it. They would like medical students to agree in advance to ‘deliver the full range of services pro-vided by the NHS’. This means, of course, performing abortions and a range of other morally problematic procedures. Catholics and others who cannot in conscience perform them will be told to leave their religious views at the door, or give up their places at medical school.
They’ll be lucky to be even given the choice. A minor poet saw through this fiction of secular tolerance battling religious intolerance over forty years ago.
8 comments:
"You may say that this doesn’t affect you. But it does. There are very serious issues here. The democratic process is being by-passed and legitimate views marginalised. Where will our society end up when compromise is not even discussed?"
Few people seem to recognise the import of what is happening here. The fear of being accused of homophobia is blinding people to the damage that is being done to the democratic process. Bill Cash MP,Shadow Attorney-General,says that the whole issue is bringing Parliament into disrepute. (Sorry I don't know how to make the link, it is on my blog or in the Daily Telegraph archive).
A minor poet? ;-}
These are serious issues and the welfare of our children should outweigh our reluctance to be vilified and demonized by the loonies.
It's one thing for a gay uncle or other family member to adopt children whose parents have been killed and have no other relatives to take them in. It's an entirely different matter for gays to adopt through agencies when there are so few children available for adoption.
erp:
It's an entirely different matter for gays to adopt through agencies when there are so few children available for adoption.
True.
But I think even secular adoption agencies establish a priority pecking order. For instance, a married couple will always take precedence over a gay couple.
Which means, in practice, gay couples are often adopting children that are otherwise "difficult" to place.
From what I have read of the issue in the UK, the Catholic adoption agencies would rather a child not be adopted, than adopted by a gay couple.
Also, there is the issue of accepting government support.
If you want the money, you have to live with the restrictions.
Otherwise, do like Hillsdale College does in the US: eschew all government support of any kind.
Peter, It's a good thing (for me) I have so much discretionary time on my hands.
Phyllis McGinley, bio and more
wrote about contemporary issues from a female perspective.
One of her books, it might have been "A Sixpence in My Shoe" because the timing is right, it was published in 1964, was part of my personal library for many years and was lent out to countless female acquaintances. I couldn't find a book review on line, but if it's the book I'm thinking of, it was laughing out loud funny and an invaluable aid to those of us who were quite positive about ourselves, didn't hate men and saw no need to demonstrate in the streets to demand the kind of "equal rights" championed by notorious lefties like, Betty Friedan et al.
Re: Catholic adoption agencies. I don't know anything about them, but allowing gays to adopt children, even those who are "un-adoptable" seems risky to me. On the other hand, a blanket rule against gay adoption may be too draconian as there may be many gays who could be great parents.
Eeeeeeeek. The multiple post demon is following meeeeeeeee!
Hey Skipper:
There is no such thing as a private adoption agency in the UK; all adoptions are authorised by the state. The agencies find suitable adoptive parents and present the case to an official adoption panel. So, it isn't a question of eschewing government aid but accepting the restrictions or ceasing to function.
Also, you will find that Catholic agencies have, when they felt it appropriate, placed children with gay couples. The problem with the new detailed arrangements is that same-sex couple must be given equal consideration as heterosexual couples as prospective adopters. This changes the traditional notion of 'parents' as a mother and father.
erp:
Thanks for that. I've always wondered. The poem appears in The Conservative Reader edited by (I think) Russell Kirk and we don't have access to such books up here. If you ever find a way that I can get a hold of a copy, please let me know.
Post a Comment