Comments: RC adoption agency persists in its appeal

Don't give up, do they?

Posted by Richard Ashby at Saturday, 13 August 2011 at 9:26am BST

Can anyone be surprised by this turn of events?

The charity is attempting to survive and maintain its essential integrity by reversing a decision which would result in the extinction of the concept and individual existence of a "RC adoption agency" in England and Wales in what purports to be the largest reversal of the rights and freedoms of organisation of Roman Catholics in the UK since emancipation.

Posted by Jakian Thomist at Saturday, 13 August 2011 at 2:46pm BST

Maybe 'Catholic Care', if indeed it is to proceed with the appeal - on the grounds of its probable withdrawal from the Adoption Process if it loses - should consider beforehand the moral implications of refusing its services should the ruling authority continue to allow it to discriminate on the basis of the sexual orientation of adoptive parents.

The outcome could well be that Catholic Care agencies may lose the right to place needy children into the care of loving foster-parents. And what good would that do?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Saturday, 13 August 2011 at 9:37pm BST

This catholic speaker , Michael Voris is quite hard hitting...he will be speaking at the Regent Hall, london on the 24 August.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UJ1ekB--Fo&feature=related

It only costs £5..

Posted by Robert ian Williams at Sunday, 14 August 2011 at 8:21am BST

"in what purports to be the largest reversal of the rights and freedoms of organisation of Roman Catholics in the UK since emancipation."

Yepp, and about time too.
If a religion finds it more important to insist on discrimiating against people who have equal rights under the law than to help vulnerable children, it cannot be expected to be indulged by the state.

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 14 August 2011 at 3:20pm BST

This is pure emotional blackmail on the part of the Roman Church. Freedom of religion does not mean a public accommodation has the right to discriminate.


Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by Gary Paul Gilbert at Sunday, 14 August 2011 at 3:48pm BST

Have just read my comment (Saturday) again. It should have read 'dis-allow' in line 2, rather than the word 'allow'.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 14 August 2011 at 5:53pm BST

Robert Ian Williams:

For "hard hitting", read bigot!"

affectionately, Father Dodman.

Posted by Donald Dodman at Sunday, 14 August 2011 at 8:19pm BST

@ Erika Baker - I think you make a good point and I think you have also shown how the issue of 'rights' quickly turns into a 'zero-sum' game.

To take Gary's comment as an example, we could also argue that "this is pure emotional blackmail on the part of the" British state for forcing a charity to choice between its Catholic origins (regardless of how WE judge those origins) and its mission of helping vulnerable children.

Couldn't we also judge a state that "finds it more important to insist on discrimiating against people who have equal rights under the law (i.e. Catholics) than to help vulnerable children"?

The point is - is this not a rather pyrrhic victory for those true believers in non-discrimination as opposed to those who have sectoral interests?

Posted by Jakian Thomist at Monday, 15 August 2011 at 6:57pm BST

"The point is - is this not a rather pyrrhic victory for those true believers in non-discrimination as opposed to those who have sectoral interests?"

No, because true believers in non-discrimination would not want to discriminate.

I don't know what this is so terribly hard to understand for some religious people, but it's actually really simple.
If you perform a purely Christian role in the context of your own faith, the opt out from the equality law applies.

If you perform a role on behalf of the state - and that includes placing children for which the state is legally responsible into foster care or with adoptive parents, then the opt-out doesn't apply because the state cannot discriminate against any of its citicens purely on the basis that some people believe God would rather it did.

Comply with the law or opt out. But live with the moral consequence of your choice.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 16 August 2011 at 7:09am BST

"Couldn't we also judge a state that "finds it more important to insist on discrimiating against people who have equal rights under the law (i.e. Catholics) than to help vulnerable children"?"

This is actually priceless.
The state isn't discriminating against Catholics, it's treating them precisely the same as any other group that wants to set up adoption agencies.

You are not complaining about discrimination, because there isn't any, you are ASKING for discrimination in your favour.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 16 August 2011 at 9:48am BST

"...we could also argue that 'this is pure emotional blackmail on the part of the' British state for forcing a charity to choice between its Catholic origins (regardless of how WE judge those origins) and its mission of helping vulnerable children."

No we could not. Adoption agencies are expected to have the best interests of the children they serve as their uncontested top priority. If an organization has cultural or mythological baggage that prevents it from attending singularly to that goal then it should find another business to get into. Children at risk deserve to be placed with the most qualified family and not bounced from foster home to foster home in order to make a petty polemical point.

The RCC's position on homosexuality is well known, and is not the issue: that position does not obligate them to put children in a transient home situation that is a much greater "distortion" of God's will for the family which they are supposedly seeking to vindicate by this selective mining of Catholic social teaching on marriage. Rather, it is their obsession with disavowing anything that might imply the humanity of gays and lesbians that now has them punishing the innocent "little ones" for the "sins of the fathers [or mothers!]". Is there no depth too low for Rome to stoop? For shame.

Posted by Geoff at Tuesday, 16 August 2011 at 10:17pm BST

Interesting too - and with some parallels - what is happening in Illinois.
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/il_20110816_lambda-legal-represents-child.html

I am tempted to respond by allowing the appeal and letting Catholic Care prepare adopters once again.

However I believe this should only be allowed if they accept further amendments to their objects stating that they will only prepare Roman Catholic married couples who are fully committed to ALL Catholic teaching and already have children (to demonstrate their marriage is not sterile and therefore not a marriage at all) and that any child placed with these couples must not be a gay child.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 18 August 2011 at 12:22pm BST

Will this have any bearing, at least on the context and atmosphere I wonder ?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/08/19/ehrc-confirms-backtrack-on-opt-outs-for-anti-gay-workers/

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Friday, 19 August 2011 at 2:04pm BST

"the Tribunal stated that even if the charity were permitted to discriminate in reliance upon s.139 of the Equality Act 2010, the duty is likely to impact, in due course, on the willingness of local authorities to work with a charity which discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation in respect of adoption placements.”

This, surely, is the seminal point made - in favour of Catholic Care becoming aware of the attitudes of Local Authorities, when faced with the prospect of sanctioning adoption agencies.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 6 September 2011 at 11:09am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.