Sensitivities
So where are we.
Downing Street appeared to be wavering today on allowing Catholic adoption agencies exemption from gay rights legislation, after a warning from the leader of Catholics in England and Wales that agencies may close rather than comply with the regulations…Mr Blair’s official spokesman said: “This is an issue with sensitivities on all sides…The key thing we have to remember in all of this is the interests of the children concerned and that there are arguments on both sides. This is not a straightforward black-and-white issue. This is an issue where there are sensitivities on all sides and we have to respect those but equally find a way through.”
But are there arguments on both sides? Or are there just sensitivities. There is a difference. I hope Blair knows that – but I’m not confident that he does. It’s also worth pointing out that in fact we don’t ‘have to’ respect all sensitivities just because they’re sensitivities. I hope Blair knows that too, but again, I’m not confident that he does. It sounds too like the usual community-respect-grievance-fuzz-wool for confidence. This is one reason all this kind of thing gets so…hopelessly lost in the fog: it’s because people know that all they have to do is bleat about sensitivities and respect and conscience and faith and there will be spokespeople eager to say that we have to respect those. Well we don’t. Not necessarily. It depends what they are. The people of Little Rock had ‘sensitivities’ – the white people among them, that is – about integrating the public high school there. No one ‘had to’ respect those, because they were nasty and wrong. You could multiply that example by the thousands or tens of thousands all over the planet. Everywhere you go there are ‘sensitivities’ about various outgroups and ways in which We don’t want to mix with Them and in order to avoid that dread fate we want to shut them out of various public accommodations and services so that we won’t have to, you know, mix with them and be contaminated by them. Those sensitivities do not have to be respected, and ought not to be respected, and it’s not impressive to see Blair or his spokesman saying they do. A Tory MP did a hell of a lot better than Blair did.
The Tory MP John Bercow, who has argued strongly in favour of gay equality, said: “The idea of an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies is an anathema and contradicts the concept of equality at the heart of this legislation. People choose their religion, they do not choose their orientation. I believe equality is equality is equality and it is quite incredible for the Catholic church to insist its religious views should take precedence over others’ human rights.”
Yes, it is. Perhaps this is a more straightforward black-and-white issue than Blair wants to admit.
Let’s have a look at the archbishop’s ‘argument’ then.
[T]o oblige our agencies in law to consider adoption applications from homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents would require them to act against the principles of Catholic teaching. We require our agencies to recruit and approve appropriate married and single people to meet the needs of children in local authority care for whom adoption has been identified as being in their best interest. We place significant emphasis on marriage, as it is from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born and it is within the loving context of such a relationship that a child can be welcomed and nurtured. Marital love involves an essential complementarity of male and female. We recognize that some children, particularly those who have suffered abuse and neglect, may well benefit from placement with a single adoptive parent. However, Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian Churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.
That’s it. And frankly it seems completely worthless. A single parent is okay, though not the first choice – but a gay couple is not okay. Because…’it is from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born and it is within the loving context of such a relationship that a child can be welcomed and nurtured.’ Sorry, that doesn’t work. It is, of course, from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born, because that’s how that works, but adoption isn’t about the birth of new life, it’s about rescuing an existing life from loneliness, abandonment, neglect and unhappiness. The idea seems to be (though the archbish does a damn bad job of spelling it out) that because children are born to two parents, therefore adopted children ought to be put in a situation that mimics a two-parent situation. Well – why? Why ought they? That is not clear. And, especially after learning what we’ve been learning about life at Goldenbridge, I think the archbishop should have made it clear. I assume he didn’t because he couldn’t because there is nothing to make clear. It’s not a real reason, it’s just a ‘sensitivity’ (that is, a taboo) dressed up in religious clothes, as ‘sensitivities’ so often are.
I hate to support an “established” church, but, just as a matter of policy, and twisting holy etc Tony’s tail, he should be reminded about the 39 articles, including: “The bishop of Rome hath no dominion in this realm of England” …..
No, it’s quite disgusting, especially given the way children in RC orphanages have been (are being?) treated.
Maybe the church will suggest that it will agree to adoptions by same-sex couples of babies born to same-sex couples…
Ah, if only children in their biological families had half the safeguards the adoption agencies aim for…
They have certainly missed a few arguments. Nevertheless “it would require them to act against the principles of catholic teaching” sounds pretty clear to me. It is just as stupidly non-rational to say
“The idea of an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies is an anathema”.
Conflicting moral universes. The principle of equality applied to the equality of behaviour such as murder and non-murder would be stupid; adultery and non-adultery are not the same. The fact that the revised modern moral truth includes gay sex as equal to non-gay sex does not change the standards of the rest of the world, and pretending that a common change in moral standards must apply to everyone seems pretty damn idealistic to me. Whats next, jail terms for adults who don’t let the children they are responsible for sleep with gay youth leaders on camp?
ChrisPer: “Whats next, jail terms for adults who don’t let the children they are responsible for sleep with gay youth leaders on camp?”
Silly comment and completely irrelevant to the argument.
The Archbishop makes two contradictory claims:
First, “The Catholic Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual. Indeed the Church teaches that they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”
Second, “However, Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian Churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.”
In other words, and more simply, the church opposes ALL discrimination EXCEPT that which is required by Catholic teaching about family life.
In the latter case, Catholic teaching REQUIRES that they discriminate. This is, apparently, “just” (as opposed to unjust) discrimination.
When religious teaching conflicts with the law, the former should give way provided that the latter is not unjust or immoral.
John wrote: *cough* Slavery *cough*
Quite right, that is a past moral standard we have grown out of in our comfortable western countries, though not it seems in the Middle East and Africa.
But I find it pretty important just how fast the moral compass is swinging. My own daughter of 12 was invited, as part of a PRIMARY SCHOOL choir, to sing for a local radio station and the song they were provided was the little charmer that goes ‘Hope I get you naked by the end of this song!’
This is not a paedophile radio station, but one where the staff were aligned with the young and promiscuous ‘clubbing’ life, and they were gobsmacked that anyone would find this song inappropriate for a primary school context.
Why the hell should parents or carers, christian or not, trust modern people to have sound morals? Our unease, creeping distaste or downright abhorrence are an emotional response that signals us to stop something potentially bad, before serious harm occurs. Shoving YOUR moral standards into other ordinary decent citizens lives certainly induces a degree of reactance, even ‘yuk’, and it damn well should. Thats part of how human nature has evolved to protect children from abuse.
The fact that the response to the potential wrong is poorly argued is a pity, but that’s the way people are.
the evil italic monster perverts our posts
Does that fix it?
ChrisPer, you argument is still based on rhetoric. An argument based on equality, and the illogical stance of the RC Church, was made very well above. Whenever there are changes – in this case, you talk specifically of how things were several years ago compared with how they are now – there are going to be those who lag behind. If we continued to make allowances for the laggers, we’d move on far more slowly that we do now. It’s unfortunate that some people still find gays distasteful. It’s probably the cock-up-bum thing, I dunno, that provides them with a yuck factor, and that causes them to rationalise it into a ‘genuine’ concern (although a very many gay couples don’t go in for anal but find their satisfaction in other ways). We are talking here about the UK, in 2007, in which gay sex is not illegal, in which partnerships are recognised in law for same-sex couples, in which it is not illegal for a same-sex couple to adopt a child (before that law changed, one member of the couple had to be the official adoptive parent, classed as a single person). Since this argument concertns this country at this time and in these circumstances, it’s pointless looking back ten or thirty years or to other countries.
The bit of the Archbishop’s letter that especially bothered me was the reference to “our adoption agencies”. Surely all in the adoption business are acting as agents of society (I’d rather not say the state)and therefore should follow society’s values.The agency is not (or should not be) acting for the Church.
Incidentally, I bristle at many uses of the word “discrimination”. All of us discriminate many times a day. It is only wrong when we discriminate on a ground that society does not accept as a valid ground to do so.
This is really a case for the FSM. More serious legal challenges need to be made to demonstrate that the “established” religions cannot enjoy any privilege not open to anyone with any old half-baked idea.
“Holy Tony is wriggling to find a way in which a special RELIGIOUS group can be given special, different treatment, under the law, to everyone else.”
No, he isn’t. The suggestion is that adoption gancies should not be covered by the law in regard of discrimnation based on sexuality just as they are exempt from the law in regards of discrimination based on race. That counts for religious and non-religious agencies. I don’t think Blair is motivated by religious belief here, but by pragmatism: Is it better to have more or fewer adoption agencies (all other things being equal)? Which working of the law is more likely to deliver the preferred result?
I wonder if the Church really would close their adoption agencies? I’m betting not: this is a threat designed to exert leverage, but I really doubt they would resolve to give up this whole wing of their charitable work over this principle.
I say, call their bluff. (Hell, if it’s not a bluff then they don’t deserve to be thought of as charitable in any case.)
“I wonder if the Church really would close their adoption agencies? I’m betting not”
You might be right, but you are gambling with the lives of some of society’s most vulnerable people. Why is it so awful just to accept that gay adopters will have a slightly restricted choice of adoption agencies?
There is a peculiar stridency about this debate. The constant implication or plain statement that people who selflessly devote their lives, unlike most of us here, to the charitable act of working in an adoption agency, transforming the lives of thousands of children for the better, are somehow wicked or despicable or beneath us because they don’t share precisely the same set of social prejudices that we do.
I find it hard to understand how these same agencies have been freely allowing single gay and lesbian men and women to adopt for sevral years if not decades (Seee newsnight, UK BBC2 Last Night)…
I mean, if they (the single men or women) had had a boyfriend or girlfriend in the past, presumably this was overlooked by the agencies in favour of qualities of caring, intelligence, emotional consistency, kindness, commitment etc…
So how do they differ so unfavourably now in terms of providing ‘stable’ homes, just because couples of people have had the courage to tell the world they’re an item ? The RC have got themselves in an AWFUL pickle over this one, and I see our good old CofE, desperate for bums on seats as ever, has jumped on the latest bandwagon.
Ruth Kelly, by the way, should be sacked.
John M,
It isn’t prejudice that makes me disagree with them, but reason. There’s no evidence that same-sex couples on that basis alone would be abusive to a child. What does the RC Church think would happen to a child who was brought up by a same-sex couple? Would it really be better to keep them in an institution? They’re the one’s guilty of prejudice here, not me.
“It isn’t prejudice that makes me disagree with them, but reason. There’s no evidence that same-sex couples on that basis alone would be abusive to a child.”
There’s no evidence one or the other to say whether gay couple adoption damages a child’s welfare compared with straight couple adoption. I think probably not, but that is a prejudice. It will be a post-judice when the evidence is in. But it doesn’t matter anyway.
Ruth Kelly should go to Richard Webster for some psychotherapy sessions and advise in general as she is by all accounts definitely in need of same. He could use his “persuasive” “subliminal”
“suggestive” powers on her in all sorts of ways to convince her that she is going in the wrong direction with regards the latest adoption issue.
He ‘seemingly’ from my viewpoint has this extra special gift of getting the mass media to believe his theories. Bashing the dead and the underdog is so easy to do as they are a safe voiceless target as they do not have the intellectual wherewithal to stand their ground.
>Last posting should have read, brain – dead<
Well, who knows, maybe “the dead” {Freudian slip?} did not get a fair hearing either as “dead” men cannot argue their point. Or can they indeed?
John M,
Just a couple of things I found:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6670-lesbian-couples-raise-welladjusted-teenagers.html
Evidence does matter because my taxes are currently funding an adoption agency that bases it’s selection of adoptive parents on prejudice and not science.
The RC church’s position is incoherent. Catholic adoption agencies do place children with “single” people who admit they are homosexual. What the archbish says is however against their “conscience” (translation: parroting of selected biblical texts which match their prejudices) is placing children with homosexual couples, because this undermines their “conscientious” opinion (again, based on parroting of selected biblical texts) that the only valid bond between two humans who love each other is marriage between a man and a woman. As I said in another thread, my theory is that it is really about something much deeper: terror that secular societies are learning to make their own minds up about what is good, and ignoring the incoherent blathering of popes.
I guess for the same reason, poor pathetic Rowan Williams has waded in too. “The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.”
Aux armes, citoyens! No. Non. Nyet. A Mormon whose conscience tells him he should have 3 13-year-old wives can and should be made subject to legislation. So should a pentecostal Christian whose conscience tells her she should drive the devil out of her daughter. So, alas, should I, whose conscience tells me that I should not pay that part of my taxes which goes towards Tony Blair’s weapons of mass destruction.
“So, alas, should I, whose conscience tells me that I should not pay that part of my taxes which goes towards Tony Blair’s weapons of mass destruction.”
Can you clarify your position? Are you saying that you disapprove of the proposed exemption even if the consequence of that is that thousands of children who would otherwise be adopted will instead have to grow up in institutions?
Nobody denies the legal point that everyone should obey the law, but the question is should we frame the law so that it has such negative effects on childrn just to score an ideological victory over the church?
‘Why is it so awful just to accept that gay adopters will have a slightly restricted choice of adoption agencies?’ The problem, John M, is that it’s a thin end of the wedge or a slippery slope. I know the argment against slippery-slope arguments but it is a fact that there often is a slippery slope or a thin end of the wedge, and, as someone up there has pointed out, if you give in to one group, everyone will want an exemption to this or that law.
You also say, ‘There’s no evidence one or the other to say whether gay couple adoption damages a child’s welfare compared with straight couple adoption.’ You’re right: there isn’t. But you can bet your bottom that any damage will come in most cases from the fact that kids with two ‘dads’ or two ‘mums’ might be stigmatised. However, it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy: you (as a society, as a church, whatever) make the terrain damned rough, and then send someone to traverse it. Of course there’s going to be a problem. Let the churches bless (or whatever) same-sex relationships as a ‘gift of God’ and to be encouraged along with hettie ones, and said adopted kids will breeze through the adoption, no problems.
Nick S suggests, ‘Ruth Kelly, by the way, should be sacked.’ Quite agree. It’s a straightforward case of a conflict of interests. If she doesn’t want to abandon her ‘faith’, let her abandon her ambitions to climb the political ladder and enjoy the type of power her founder warned against in the Beatitudes.
As for conscience, well someone on a BBC blog I read this morning said perhaps we should have shot all conscientious objectors. However, the difference between a conscientious objector and an adoption agency’s staff is that the former is a private citizen acting as a private citizen (unless he relents, joins up and then decides he doesn’t waht to do what he signed up to do, which is moot if the rules change) and the latter are providing a service that requires a local authority to licence that service – a public body.
>”This is an issue where there are sensitivities on all sides and we have
to respect those but equally find a way through”<
Should Tony Blair not have placed the “but” after “equally”? Or is it deliberate coded language at play?
John M: “Are you saying that you disapprove of the proposed exemption even if the consequence of that is that thousands of children who would otherwise be adopted will instead have to grow up in institutions?” For the record, that will not be the consequence in this case. Local authorities who currently fund catholic adoption agencies will be able use those funds to help the expansion of agencies which are not in thrall to a superstitious phobia about gay marriage.
In a hypothetical case where one good, the outlawing of discrimination based on a superstitious phobia about gay marriage, was in conflict with another, the placing of children in adoption who would otherwise stay in institutions, I do not think there would be an easy answer. This sort of dilemma is age-old, and a pragmatic solution can only be found in each case by weighing up the short and long term gains and losses, including the expectation that superstitions do gradually wither.
Would you have told Rosa Parks to shut up and give up her seat, because otherwise she would have to walk?
According to press reports today, Cherie Blair is pulling Saint Tony’s strings to suck up to the gay-marriage-hating clerics, and Ruth Kelly is cross at being made the scapegoat.
“Whats next, jail terms for adults who don’t let the children they are responsible for sleep with gay youth leaders on camp? “
Tell you what Chris, when straight youth leaders are allowed to sleep with their charges, then we can worry about whether gay youth leaders ought to be allowed to do the same. Until that happens, your point is totally irrelevant, as currently neither gay or straight youth leaders are allowed to sleep with their charges.
Isn’t this what’s been going on a lot in this case? That being told they have to treat everyone equally is being portrayed as a demand they have to promote that of which they disapprove?
And if they’re going to get all biblical as their punchline, it really would ring truer if they didn’t preface it with insincere platitudes about being committed to equality. If you claim you care about equality and that what’s in the bible is the word of god that you can’t not obey, it is rather telling which side you pick when the two conflict. The Catholic choice is not surprising, but I wish they wouldn’t try to paint it as if god just beat equality by a nose. We haven’t forgotten how it was when the Catholic church had a lot more power than the Blair government now has, even if we can no longer actually smell the burning flesh.
Sister Margaret Casey, Sister of Mercy, was asked by a Senior Counsel at the Irish CICA {Phase III – 2006} the following, {in relation to
Clifden Industrial School, Galway, Ireland}
“One of the things that stood out in my memory from the evidence we heard, was that – there was one of your colleagues who was singled out by most of the children who gave evidence – as nice, as a very good nun, and she said yes, she did use to give them a hug from time to time when nobody was looking. “That there was a kind of imbargo on showing affection and she had to give them a hug on the sly.” Can you comment on that situation, where a very human need is somehow made difficult to perform?”
Sister Margaret replied,-
“I suppose in the context of religious life, how human and all of us have our own natural warmth and affection needs and the way we express it, with the vow of chastity and celibacy, the thinking was that instead of
showing specific affection and love for just one person that you were freed to love all. It would have been
discouraged to, you know, show affection. But that’s not to say that individuals within that, you know,weren’t able to build up a relationship with them. I just can’t –I am just trying to recall the context ofyour question and I just can’t recall it just now from the evidence.”
By the way black/half caste children were specifically sent to Galway. The reasoning behind this was, the authorities wanted them sent as far away as possible “TO HELL OR CONNACHT” scenario prevailed. It was precisely a form of ethnic cleansing, out of sight out of mind, so to speak. They must not, under any circumstances, blot the Dublin landscape. So off to beautiful wild, west Connemara the poor unfortunate mites went in their droves.
The Religious never showed affection to us in Goldenbridge. The only contact was of a very derogatory nature. I never got a hug or was shown any human kindness in my entire childhood in the institution. When I left the god forsaken place I literally shrivelled up when anyone attempted to come too close. I did not know what it was they wanted from me.
The religious are still ruling the roost and making decisions for vulnerable children. They ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves as their past record regarding warmth human kindness and adoption matters leave much to be desired.
>”Br. Blank has made a very strong
appeal to the Provincial Council to be
allowed back to teach school again. In
1950 Br. Blank accused of immodest
handling of boys in Clonmel. The Council, after hearing Br. Blank,
considered the offence more imprudent
than grave, and he promised that no
offence would occur again. The Provincial was about to give a canonical warning but Br. Blank
appealed against it and there was no
issue of a formal canonical warning. Then in April 1955 there was another
complaint from Clonmel of him again
handling boys immodestly. The accusation was grave and concerned a
number of boys in first year. Br. Blank admitted the accusation and was given a canonical warning.” The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is still ongoing. It is dealing with abuse of vulnerable children such as the above – of a half a century ago, while in the meantime the Cardinal of Westminister sees fit to take to task the British government in trying to seek “rights” for vulnerable children when it should in essence be helping to clean up the mess in it’s own neighbour’s back yard. After all ROME IS THE “HOME” OF THE CHURCH. Denying children “loving homes” to call their own should be their main concern, as well as hanging their heads in shame.
“The Religious never showed affection to us in Goldenbridge. The only contact was of a very derogatory nature. I never got a hug or was shown any human kindness in my entire childhood in the institution.”
See this is exactly why the archbishop’s stuff about the byootiful family rings so very false to me. I just don’t buy a word of it, not with the church’s history. It’s not just Marie-Therese who says this – it’s James Joyce, Mary McCarthy, Paddy Doyle, Barney McClellan, lots of people.
Maybe the church is very very different in the UK…? Then again maybe not.
‘Why the hell should parents or carers, christian or not, trust modern people to have sound morals? Our unease, creeping distaste or downright abhorrence are an emotional response that signals us to stop something potentially bad, before serious harm occurs. Shoving YOUR moral standards into other ordinary decent citizens lives certainly induces a degree of reactance, even ‘yuk’, and it damn well should. Thats part of how human nature has evolved to protect children from abuse.’
ChrisPer, this is way below your usual standard of discourse. Modern people? You, me, everybody here, your bairn’s (I’m sure dedicated) teacher or the paedo down the road. All modern people. It isn’t about being modern. You trust who you trust when it comes to your children and if you have a bad feeling about an individual then absolutely act on it; but as Marie-Therese’s posts have illustrated, a strong religious tradition guarantees sod all.
Creeping distaste or downright abhorrence of what? Being homosexual? The fact that you find homosexuals abhorrent is reliable sign that they are a threat to children? How? The available evidence seems to indicate that if you want to protect a child from abuse you keep them out of religious institutions.
If you really mean that homosexuality implies paedophilia then present some sort of a case. And I am not shoving MY moral standards anywhere; you are. Is there a single shred of evidence, other than your visceral ‘yuk’ response, to suggest that gay adoptive couples are more inclined to abuse (sexually, emotionally, violently) than straight couples? Or traditional, non-modern institutions?
I am involved in, on average, three or four child protection issues per year and in 90% of cases the abuse is either hetero or non-discriminatory, usually within a traditional extended family setting and often multi-generational. OK, that’s anecdotal but it generally holds true.
John M, what do you mean by “Are you saying that you disapprove of the proposed exemption even if the consequence of that is that thousands of children who would otherwise be adopted will instead have to grow up in institutions?”
What thousands? Catholic adoption agencies, all the papers say, ‘accounted for 4% of the 2,900 adoptions last year.’ That’s 116. Not thousands. Furthermore, there is no ‘have to’; the church doesn’t have to close down its agencies; furthermore, the church wants to reduce the pool of potential adopters by refusing to consider gays, so why attribute the institutionalization outcome to the critics of the church’s position?
David Mc Grath, SC {whom I take off my beret to} instructed by: Michael E. Hanahoe Solicitor’s {whom I also take off my other beret to} asked Artane’s, Christian Brother Michael Reynold’s the following at the CICA Phase III 2006 Hearings {Mr. Lowe was acting for the Commission}
A. This is a handwritten report by Dr. McCabe? Q. Yes, it is. It covers about 10 to, nearly, 20 pages or so, maybe more, in relation to the various things. There is a couple of things that I am just going to put to you arising out of it. The first thing is she describes in that report, and I have counted and I hope I have the figure right, 102 boys are noted in that report as nail biters. Now, would that suggest to you that there were, at least at the time of that inspection, 102 boys in the school who had some form of nervous situation which caused them to bite nails, it
is not a normal thing that you would expect? A. I think you should be addressing that to Mr. Lowe, to be honest with you. I have no idea. Q. If you were told there were 102 boys who were nail biters, what would that make you think, anything at all? A. I certainly wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about it,
I must confess. What would you think if in that particular report over 200
boys were noted to have holes in their teeth, some of them up to five holes in their teeth. Would that suggest that there was something wrong with the medical care?
Not only was/is one dealing with the emotional and psychological needs, but also very importantly so medical needs.
In goldenbridge, big/little children always sucked the majority of their fingers/thumbs, they also constantly chewed their nails. Some even chewed the nails on their toes. Gum-boils, were also a speciality feature to be seen. The Religious have also got another diabolical track record in this sphere. I am not trying to get at the religious, only merely stating facts. the pot calling the adoption kettle very black is a bit of a misnomer indeed.
Ther were 800 boys at one given time in Artane Industrial School.
Dr. McCabe was the only inspector for all the industrial schools in Eire when she retired she was not with any one else replaced.
ChrisPer said:
…pretending that a common change in moral standards must apply to everyone…
Non-discrimination against gays is not a ‘change’ in moral standards, it is the consistent application of moral standards that most people, including Catholics, claim to follow. Being mean to people is not morally OK. Arbitrarily depriving people of participation in public activities is not morally OK. You see, discrimination against gays always has been, is, and always will be morally wrong; it is undeserving of defense, and those that advocate for it, advocate for evil, whether they mean to or not.
ChrisPer said:
Why the hell should parents or carers, christian or not, trust modern people to have sound morals?
We have good evidence that we moderns are more moral than people used to be.
Fifty years ago, few women could get jobs with any real responsibility or pay. Those that did were subject to sexual harassment openly and routinely.
One hundred years ago, most citizens were a-ok with imperialistic wars by their nations. Today we at least have to pretend that we are not, and a sizable minority believes it is wrong, period.
One hundred fifty years ago (and more recently!), authoritarianism was openly viewed as a corrective to the great unwashed. Today it is widely seen for what it is, the mafia writ large.
Two hundred years ago, it was considered OK to own human beings. Few people defend this practice now.
I must confess to finding ChrisPer’s ‘defence’ of discrimination against gays, and related ones, really quite irritating. It implies that somehow the removal of discrimination is some kind of imposition. It really is the opposite: the removal of an arbitrary imposition. Just to be clear: supporting the end of discrimination against gays: morally right; defending discrimination against gays: morally wrong.
RJ, Don et al, thanks for your comments.
Some are framing the discussion as though their personal moral framework is the only valid one, or at least that frameworks which conflict with theirs are automatically invalid. This is wrong.
The essence of a free person is that you get to decide for yourself what is moral or not. Where you would morally permit behaviour that ‘society’ agrees should be stopped, laws provide additional limits. The limits of law have changed so the gay sex is no longer a felony at least in most western societies.
What we have here is an opposite case; that the law appears to be forcing people to commit an act that they perceive as a moral wrong.
It would be a moral wrong against a child to place it with people locked in a lifestyle founded on moral wrongdoing (by the catholic standard, not mine).
Discriminating against people on wholly bogus grounds, like race, sex or sexuality, might be wrong in many circumstances. There are cases though where it is not nasty but rational behaviour.
Putting a child with a well-vetted, trustworthy gay couple might for all we know result in a perfect world result in 100% good life outcomes by secular standards, for all we know. But as I understand it in catholic and much christian teaching the outcome of sin is 100% certain condemnation to death. If one believed that, it would be an act of criminal irresponsibility to put a child into a family where that is the outcome for the good parents, and therefore possibly the child as well.
I am assuming for the sake of argument that the gay couples are actually a good home by secular standards, which I think is likely true in most cases. Nevertheless for male couples it is likely that in a significant number of homes that a child would be in an environment of promiscuity, and associated with family friends of very doubtful characters. Just like natural children, as has been pointed out
ChrisPer: “But as I understand it in catholic and much christian teaching the outcome of sin is 100% certain condemnation to death.”
BUT this belief is irrational. It is based on selective interpretation of words supposed to be from a god but in reality written by men.
As such, this belief is NO GOOD basis for action.
THIS is the fundamental problem. A religious reason for discrimination, against whoever, should not be admissable in a secular society.
The belief that sex (including gay sex) is morally neutral is irrational too. Yet that seems to be a principle of the present drive for change.
Keith:”A religious reason for discrimination, against whoever, should not be admissable in a secular society.”
Yes, but:
1) You confound this case with discrimination against gays. It is not the same thing.
2) If wild-eyed activists or quack health proponents get a hand into public debate from the media, there are no grouds for excluding religious based values on grounds of irrationality.
Does ChrisPer really think that the kind of gay couple willing to go through the rigours of the adoption process is likely to prejudice the success of that outcome by creating “an environment of promiscuity, and associated with family friends of very doubtful characters”? This is bonkers prejudice, nothing more.
And BTW, people are obliged by the state to do things they find morally objectionable all the time. Ask a libertarian about paying taxes…
Are we, and everyone else, not looking at the real problem here (perhaps) ?
The entire discussion so far, has centred around the immediate “problem” of adoption by “gay” couples.
Yet, that a special exemption should be granted, in law to a sectarian and special-interest religious group, does not appear to alarm people. (In the “public” domain, at least.)
Once an exemption of this sort is granted to any one special interest, then everyone else will want one as well – except, of course, those of us who do not have imaginary friends.
The potential for a precedent for (especially) muslim pressure-groups is simply very, very frightening.
“ohn M, what do you mean … swhat thousands? Catholic adoption agencies, all the papers say, ‘accounted for 4% of the 2,900 adoptions last year.’ That’s 116. Not thousands. Furthermore, there is no ‘have to’; the church doesn’t have to close down its agencies”
That is 116 a year. Over the years it will amount to thousands. And you are right that the church doesn’t have to close its agencies in the sense that they will be forced to by threat of volence, but they will have to in the sense that they will otherwise be forced by threat of violence to do something that they think is wrong. Just as I wuld feel I had to resign from this company if it decided that it would force me to take actions that I beleive are wrong, such as institutionalise discrimination aganinst gay men. I would be free to stay and commit the actions I consider wrong, but that wouldn’t be a free choice in the usual sense.
The belief that sex (including gay sex) is morally neutral is irrational too.
Really? Why?
Ah, not so G. Scouts have a special exemption to allow them to exclude gay scoutleaders; because so many of them have not been capable of keeping their hands in their own pockets. And straight male teachers are not left in charge of female students in unwitnessed, potentially inflammatory situations. Thats real life.
And Dave, I think probably not – in most cases. Notice I stipulated that this argument assumes the gay couple is OK.
Nevertheless, I once shared a house with a great gay guy, and just his wide social circle included many people of very wide calibres indeed, including some I found very attractive – and some desperately sad psychological types of people.
I would have much more confidence in lesbian couples I know – I am perhaps lucky to know some truly amazing ones.
But while we are on the subject of frightening things, perhaps one of you could enlighten me on this question: how many people died of HIV when gay activists called it ‘discrimination’ and kept giving blood when they were asked not to?
Discrimination is not necessarily a wrong.
ChrisPer: “The belief that sex (including gay sex) is morally neutral is irrational too. Yet that seems to be a principle of the present drive for change.”
This statement makes no sense unless you define what kind of sex you are referring to.
ChrisPer: “Yes, but:
1) You confound this case with discrimination against gays. It is not the same thing.”
In what way is it “not the same thing”.
A simple statement, without corroborating argument, is unconvincing.
So what does everyone agree on? Everyone seems to agree that children up for adoption exist and must be dealt with. Everyone agrees that homosexual couples exist. The Catholic church has expressed itself in favour of equality, but in this particular case, wishes to be exempted from the law that is supposed to enforce it because of an ancient text attributed to a being on whose existence there is anything but concensus. Why should anyone be expected to respect the opinion of someone whose existence is extremely improbable, especially when it conflicts with the needs and rights of beings about whose existence nobody has expressed any doubts?
Oh, and as some commenters have been giving their own pros and cons as to the suitability of homosexuals as adoptive parents, please remember that it’s precisely this kind of argument, weighing things up and having opinions on them, that the church is avoiding. The opinion is a given; the church is not discussing this matter or even seeking out statistics to back up a prejudice. It’s not about the facts on the ground; it’s about the dictate attributed to an imaginary friend. What the church is saying now is nothing but what the imaginary friend’s inventors decided to have him say when they came up with him.
“Why should anyone be expected to respect the opinion of someone whose existence is extremely improbable, especially when it conflicts with the needs and rights of beings about whose existence nobody has expressed any doubts?”
You needn’t respect their opiniion, you are free to denigrate it. But I think you should ask yourself which is the least bad: that people with a ludicrous opnion continue to find homes for thousands of children currently living in institutions, or that they are prevented from doing so because their ludicrous opinion means they do something that you and I disapprove of (even though that something has no negative consequences at all).
Dogma and ideology can sneak up on you sometimes.
Ah, but are there no negative consequences? How often have people with ludicrous opinions had great power without any negative consequences ensuing? And is not the very fact of anyone getting an exemption from legislation designed to protect a minority from unequal treatment in itself something negative? How many examples can one come up with that fit the above description that are not potentially alarming? The fact that the Catholics have enough power to merit all this talk is hardly a cause for rejoicing.
“The fact that the Catholics have enough power to merit all this talk is hardly a cause for rejoicing.”
The only ‘power’ they have in this case is based on the fact that they do a lot of excellent chairtable work that we despertely don’t want them to stop doing. In that sense, they are only ‘powerful’ the way Oxfam is.
John M – I appreciate that you are making a pragmatic argument here, and I’ll leave aside other issues commenters and yourself have raised, but I wonder to what extent this historical ‘outreach’ element of the RC – adoption agencies, night shelters, etc, would have had its day if:
A The government was less obsessed with contnuing, as the conservatves did before, moving social costs such as these off-balance sheet and onto any ostenibly *suitable* relgious organisation prepared to pick up the work.
B Tony Blair and other members of his coterie were less much informed by their own religious education than any genuine liberal agenda for social reform ?
In other words, just because this particular administration has railroaded reduced social service provision, is that something that ought be perpetuated, when the vast majority of the public have differing view, if they’re actually asked ?
“In other words, just because this particular administration has railroaded reduced social service provision, is that something that ought be perpetuated, when the vast majority of the public have differing view, if they’re actually asked ?”
I was under the impression that spending the Blair this administration. Personally, I don’t thhink there is a serious point of principle in whether or not services are provided by state institutions or charitable or private ones, so long as they are provided fairly and effectively. Public opinion on these things is not much help. It tends to be uninformed a a little bit dishonest.
John M. Ok, we’re broadening the argument, but spending has increased to the NHS and Educatuion. Talk to anyone working in frontline services – youth services, or with old people, with learning difficulties, or with mental illness. There is much that has been decimated by New Labour over the last ten years, and much that is not being adequately replaced – if at all.
You are falling for the myth of the ‘third way’ if you believe services are anything like adequate, irrespective whoever has been delivering them.
Ahem …
‘I was under the impression that spending on public services under the Blair administration had soared …’
The extent to which charities can claim the right to ‘target’ an approved demographic and exclude those of whom they disaprove in interestingly illustrated here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1981694,00.html
Is the same princple at stake?
John – got that – see above – furthemore the govt has largely targetted vote-winning areas of education and NHS spending, but simultaneously underresourced much social services work; it’s not considered sexy or appealing to that notional middle-England voter… It has of course also frittered enormous amounts of that public spending increase on consultancy firms, change managment firms, rebranding firms, not to mention the disastrous obsession it has for using PFI to address any major newbuild requirements. Brown’s economic miracle my arse. But I’m getting carried away; I’ve made my point (hopefully).
I appreciate that the motives (John M) are pure, but that kind of thinking can also complicate things enormously. We (society) get something of benefit from the Catholic church. Whether it’s 4% of adoptions or something else we deem worthy. And the price for that service? Exempting the church from equality regarding gays. It’s “slippery slope”ing, as OB has put it. If the line is not drawn at “the law is the law and applies equally to all” (there’s equality for you), then where is it to be drawn? What bargains could then be struck to permit behaviour illegal for everyone else to be indulged in by those who claim they are compensating with other benefits? Bad legislation is to be protested, certainly. If a comedian is prepared to test a law protecting religion from ridicule, it’s because the negative consequences need to be made clear. Get enough of them together and the message will become clear: repeal this law as unworkable and unjust or resign yourselves to turning your penal system into a hotel for humorists. In the gay/Catholic case, as I’ve already made clear, two things are especially disturbing: the loophole aspect (because they must realise they’ll never get the whole legislation overturned in this day and age) and the hypocritical prefacing of their demands with their claim to be pro-equality.
>Maybe the church is very very different in the UK…? Then again maybe not<
OB:
Catholicism, in the UK from my discernment would be more tenaciously so conservative than that of eighty per cent {census 2006} Eire. As they are in such a small minority, they have always had to tussle their own corner. Roman Catholics that I knew during time spent in London were implausibly much more dependable and staunch than that of my Irish catholic counterparts. In Ireland, Catholicism, is taken by the people, – as established whereas in Britain it is not the case.
Catholicism in GB became very tolerable during the reign of Cardinal Basil Hume. I would imagine that it has taken more than two steps rearward since his demise. “Spud Murphy charisma” would not have the same effect on the ‘stiff upper lip’British elite.
And, of course “the catholics” have been regarded with suspicion for a very long time in England – since November 1558, in fact.
I’s one reason why classic anti-semitism never took hold here in modern times.
Remember, that from 1583 (I think) until about 1612, it was the religious duty of a catholic to kill the monarch and return the country to the true church. During that time catholics managed to kill three other monarchs: Henri III & Henri IV of France, and Willem the Silent of the Netherlands.
They were rightly regarded the same way as the islamofascists are now – would that some of Walsingham’s measures were taken against THEM – but that’s another story.
Then, 100 years later this country had the largest-ever proportional immigration it has seen – about 50 000 Huguenots fled France after the Edict of Fontainbleu, October 17th 1685 – with one of my ancestors among them.
Cardinal Hume’s time in office saw Roman Catholicism become more accepted in British society than it had been for 400 years – possibly because Hume was seen as more loyal and assimilated than any cleric of Irish extraction could be, particularly given the political events in Ireland over the 20th century – culminating in the first visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Westminster Cathedral in 1995.
In 1998, Hume asked Pope John Paul II for permission to retire, expressing the wish to return to Ampleforth and devote his last years to peace and solitude, fly fishing and following his beloved Newcastle United F.C. The request was refused.
He was diagnosed with inoperable abdominal cancer in April 1999. On June 2, 1999, Queen Elizabeth awarded him the Order of Merit. He died just over two weeks later, at the age of 76. After a funeral service broadcast live on national television, he was buried in Westminster Cathedral.
He is remembered for leading his church through one of its calmest periods in 400 years, for his work with the homeless and his love of football.
Hume’s success in the role – he was regularly named Britain’s most popular religious figure in opinion polls – was attributed by some to the great humility and warmth with which he treated everyone he met, regardless of their religion or background.
I am veering off the adoption path, but can I still tell ye all a little about His Eminence. I lived in a girl’s friendly hostel near Westminster, and I commonly came upon the very pious Cardinal. On one occurrence I chanced to encounter him on shanks mare swaggering along Francis St. with none other than the aged ex British Prime Harold Wilson, {the latter of who had an apartment adjacent to the Cathedral piazza,} they were having great craic. His jersey‘s were always full of holes and he did not give a hoot. He was a gent through and through. He loved to play Frisbee, and did not like the prickly job of being a Cardinal, it weighed too much on his conscience. He just wanted to be carefree.
Prince Charles, at the request of the Cardinal, attended, many times special Christmas services at the Cathedral. The Prince, with invitations to Westminster Abbey, reciprocated it courteously. I remember a person at a meeting asking him the following…. “Are you afraid of death? No, why should I be – only those who are afraid of life, – would be afraid of death, and I certainly love life.” He sure did!
I wonder though what would his private judgment would be on the contemporary Kelly Adoption issue?
John M –
My question: ‘What do you mean by “Are you saying that you disapprove of the proposed exemption even if the consequence of that is that thousands of children who would otherwise be adopted will instead have to grow up in institutions?” What thousands? Catholic adoption agencies, all the papers say, ‘accounted for 4% of the 2,900 adoptions last year.’ That’s 116. Not thousands.’
Your answer: ‘That is 116 a year. Over the years it will amount to thousands.’
That is ridiculously, even trollishly disingenuous. Yes, after eighteen years that would just barely amount to ‘thousands’ – it would be just barely over two thousand. Well you don’t get to argue that ‘X will lead to thousands of Y’ when in fact you mean that ‘X will lead to 2088 of Y after 18 years’. It’s a bit like telling someone ‘This job will pay you thousands of pounds’ when in fact you mean it will have paid a total of 2088 pounds after 18 years.
>”And, of course “the catholics” have been regarded with suspicion for a very long time in England – since November 1558, in fact.”< “A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spares my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” youb can say that again. The latest suspicious catholic character is in the guise of one Ruth Kelly.
“The revocation of the Edit de Nantes basically had the effect of depriving France of a huge part of its most industrious and innovative population, artisans, early industrialists and capitalists.”
That’s interesting. I must have encountered the thought before, but it seems like a new one (new to me I mean). Very life the effect Hitler’s clever policies had on Germany, no doubt.
The St Bartholomew’s Day massacre must have had a similar albeit smaller effect, no?
“The revocation of the Edit de Nantes basically had the effect of depriving France of a huge part of its most industrious and innovative population, artisans, early industrialists and capitalists.”
YES!
It handed leadership of the planet, on a plate to the English-speakers.
Why do you think, even with the sucessive treasonous defence-cuts imposed by the ghastly thing from Grantham, and holy Tony, there are so many Huguenot names in both the Army and Navy?
The first governor of the Bank of England was one, a Mr Hop – which is how D’Houblon translates ….
Hi! I thought you and your readers might be interested in some post-Easter news about Pope Benedict XVI…
The Pope’s car is being auctioned off to raise money for Habitat for Humanity:
http://www.buyacarvideos.com/popecar.htm
The bidding is already more than $200,000! Personally, I think this is a really fun and creative way to raise
money. The auction goes until April 14th if you and your readers want to check it out.