Catholic Church blackmails Government
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster (and Cranmer notes far too many media outlets simply referring to him as ‘the Archbishop of Westminster’…), has written to every member of the Cabinet asking them to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from their imminent Sexual Orientation Regulations which will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of ‘services’. It seems that the closet-Catholic PM and the representative of Opus Dei to HM Government are one side, and the rest of the Cabinet on the ‘anti-discrimination’ other. Since the orthodox teaching of the Church is that marriage is monogamous and heterosexual, the Cardinal has said that its adoption agencies ‘would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents’. To be obliged to do so would be ‘unreasonable, unnecessary, and unjust discrimination against Catholics’, and he has threatened the Government with the closure of his adoption agencies if they are obliged to conform to the law.
Cranmer has some sympathy with this whole ‘competing rights’ argument, but in the Anglican Church, the policy is to place children with couples or individuals who are assessed according to their suitability and to the needs of the child. There are 4000 children in Britain awaiting adoptive parents, loving families, somewhere they can feel secure and call ‘home’. While the traditional family unit is being challenged on all fronts, it is not for the Church – any denomination – to assert a blanket ban upon any human being in the provision of social service. The world is broken; marriages fail; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and love can abound in the most surprising of places. If the Roman Catholic Church is only prepared to entertain couples as potential adoptive parents provided they are heterosexual, it begs the question as to how it pastors its own single parents, who manifestly fall short of its marital ideal.
Cranmer asks his communicants to consider that the Catholic Adoption Agency has conformed to race relations law without any problem; it has happily been placing needy children with married couples of manifold faiths. Cranmer wonders which is the lesser evil here. If the Roman Catholic Church is so prioritising the needs of the child, why is it prepared to place vulnerable children with heterosexual Muslims (a faith about which the Cardinal has already expressed a certain disquiet), but not homosexual Christians?
posted by Cranmer at 7:12 PM
181 Comments:
As there is no Anglican diocese of Westminster it would seem a needless addition to add the words "Roman Catholic" to the title of Archbishop of Westminster - the only diocese of Westminster is a Catholic one, even if British law bans Catholics from claiming a territorial See.
I fail, in this instance, to see the difference between what you call blackmail and taking a stand on an issue of morality.
The Catholic teaching on homosexual acts is simply based on natural law. Governments can legislate sexual orientation equality in every way they wish - it still won't change the basic law of nature that homsexual acts cannot produce a child. If God, in his infinite wisdom, saw fit to design nature so that only a man and a woman could have children, then it would seem blindingly obvious that this is what any Church should accept as normative, instead of adopting the easy option of keeping everyone happy - a toothless Christianity!
These laws are not aimed at tolerance - they are aimed at forcing acceptance. Catholics are being forced to accept homosexual acts as equal in every way to heterosexual acts, rather than to tolerate the fact that they exist and to attempt to live peacably with that reality. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.
I fail to see what you were trying to say about conforming to racial equality laws - race and sexual orientation are miles apart in moral terms - to link them together in such a way seems to me to say more about your thoughts on Catholicism than anything else.
I fear your prejudice against Catholicism is perhaps getting the better of you.
The Catholic agencies currently pass on enquiries from same sex couples to other agencies thereby giving them the opportunity to recieve assistance in adopting. The church accepts the law with regard to the legality of same sex adoption and this is not what is being protested. I agree that tolerance and acceptance are two different things, tolerance has clearly already been achieved and there is no need to push the issue further unless to enforce acceptance. It is a matter of conscience and I find it difficult to understand how equality for some can be achieved at the expense of equality for others.
Hhm. Again these catholics are trying to conquer Great Britain. Don't they ever give up?
Well, we were there first Colin
Bob,
Well, paganism was there even earlier.
It is difficult to see through the subtle strategy of catholics for subduing protestantism. First, they established the EU as their instrument of power as His Grace has convincingly pointed out before. And now, His Grace reported that officially God is off the EU agenda.
What are these catholics up to? Does the Vatican plan to first secularize or islamize the EU in order to divert attention from the catholic conquest of Europe?
Hhm.
Yes the Vatican, in conjunction with a Martian strike force are planning a major coup. Of course, for years, Britain is all we Catholics have thought of, and the day when we would once again take the throne, and now the Martians have agreed to help us. We'll be assisted in our plan to subdue Protestantism by the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, an army of Leprechauns, not to mention Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves. Then finally when Britain is ours once again we shall turn to Europe and rise up with an army of Smurfs to take Europe for the Pope and his successors...
Shh Bob, don't give all the plans away.
Excellent.
His Grace has not laughed so much in ages, and thanks Mr Bob most sincerely.
Yes, those Smurfs demand secrecy!!!
You are most welcome, Lord Cranmer.
I fail to see what you were trying to say about conforming to racial equality laws - race and sexual orientation are miles apart in moral terms
Mr Bob,
It is not a question of ethnicity, but of religion. Since the pursuit of salvation of the soul is primary, and the Roman Catholic Church believes itself to be 'the sole organ for the salvation of mankind' (reiterated as recently as 2000 by Cardinal Ratzinger in Dominus Iesus), it stands to reason that the placing of vulnerable children with (say) Muslim parents would be to their soteriological detriment.
This said, since the Catholic Adoption Agency admits that it already places children with single homosexuals, His Grace is simply baffled that the Roman Catholic Church should consider the placing of children with a homosexual ('Christian') couple as morally undesirable, while permitting their placing with heterosexual Muslim couples, who cannot guide them to salvation, to be morally permissible.
Sorry Colin you are a little off the mark the term pagan is from Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning "rural", "rustic" or "of the country." This was exclusively used within the Roman Empire and referred mainly to the farming class and was considered derogatory. In Britain the religion was dominated by the Druids, the Celtic priestly caste eventually outlawed by Claudius. Under Roman rule the Britains continued to worship native Celtic deities, such as Ancasta, but conflated with their Roman equivalents, like Mars Rigonemetos at Nettleham. Christianity entered Britain around this time (It is not appreciated today just how quickly Christianity spread through out the whole of the Roman Empire). So you have an underclass of Christians within the Romanic divinities but not worshiping them. Paganism today refersmore to the relatively modern cult of Wicca invented in 1954 by a British civil servant named Gerald Gardner. The more gullible accept the canard that it is ancient and mystic and .. well you get the picture. No the only Druid I know of is your very own Archdruid of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, check it out if you don’t believe me.
As for taking over the UK this data is a little old (1994) but still relatively current and in only 150 years the Catholics are out numbering the Anglicans (again). Ohh run for the Hills the papists are coming! Light the Smithfield fires, Oh excuse me your Eminence Oxford; We got us some chicken to cook!
Denomination Number of members (million)
Roman Catholic 2.044
Church of England 1.808
I would draw Lord Cranmer's attention to two documents of the Catholic magesterium, and reference them specifically:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.
-Nostra Aetate, 3
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”
-Consideration regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual person, 4
The Recusant,
I only knew about the Celtic priestly caste, the Druids. Thank you for taking the trouble to teach me something new. You're right, of course.
Mr Bob,
His Grace is familiar with these writings, but begs to point out that the Roman Catholic Church stpos short of saying that Muslims are saved. Respect and esteem are not soteriologically efficacious.
On homosexuality, His Grace agrees with you on the 'contrary to nature' thesis, yet notes that Rome believes the homosexual to be 'objectively disordered'. This being so, why does the Catholic Adoption Agency place children with 'objectively disordered' single adults, but is not prepared to countenance 'objectively disordered' couples?
Bob,
I have to admit that His Grace has a strong argument by pointing out that the placing of children with any other religion than Catholicism (e.g. Protestantism) is illogical "Since ...the Roman Catholic Church believes itself to be 'the sole organ for the salvation of mankind' (reiterated as recently as 2000 by Cardinal Ratzinger in Dominus Iesus),.."
Either they believe in the sole salvation of the sould by the Catholic Church then it would be a crime to deny salvation to children by accepting adoption by other faiths or the Catholic Church does not believe in it then they should abandon a dogma which is contradictory to their practice.
However, your comment is well-reasoned and quite impressive in regard to homosexuality.
If, as my Lord Cranmer would have us believe, he is conversant with "Dominus Iesus” he will surely be aware that Roman Catholic teaching is via the whole Magisterium and the deposit of faith through both Holy Scripture and Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit. I would suggest to your Eminence that you actually read Dominus Iesus which is an excellent document produced by The Holy Father while still a Cardinal before demonstrating your ignorance of it to the world. In particular I would draw your attention to paragraph 2, 20 and the conclusion (In fact read all of it). Additionally we Catholics have always taught this as the following testifies:
Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:
We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?
Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.
Your Eminence be clear on this, we Catholics do not hold or believe that all non-Catholics or non-Christians are destined for the fires of hell, that is between the Christ and the individual. This is the teaching of our Church, our Bishops and the Magisterium. Please don’t misrepresent it again, we hold it dear and we will defend it.
You seem to have misread the text Lord Cranmer. It said that the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, not the person. I would imagine that the assumption is that a single homosexual person who approached a Catholic Adoption Agency to adopt a child is living the life of chastity that the document I quoted above referred to and is endeavouring, to the best of their abilities, like all of us, to live a virtuous life. A homosexual couple, no matter how loving and committed their relationship may be, are living a life that is contrary to virtue, again as the document above pointed out.
To answer your objection in regard to the salvationof Muslims I refer you to the following:
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Lumen Gentium, 16
Colin, as The Recusant wisely advises, I would suggest you actually read Dominus Iesus before commenting on it's contents.
The Recusant,
You said "we Catholics do not hold or believe that all non-Catholics or non-Christians are destined for the fires of hell, that is between the Christ and the individual."
Then, what do people need the Church for, why should they pay priests, and why this resistance against the Islamization of Europe? It is all between the individual and Christ, right?
Bob,
Homosexuals are nice, kind, often highly intelligent and creative people which deserve our respect. However, nobody asked they child if it wanted to be raised in such an unusual family consisting of two homosexual partners. You may object that nobody is able to ask a newborn child. Correct. However, even if we cannot be certain about the child's wishes, there is a very high probability that they would not consent. Children always want to be like all the others in school. I wouldn't like to have been raised by a homosexual couple, would you ? Since such a placement of children is in complete disregard of the child's interests, it is against all our understanding of human rights and the fact that Catholic priests claim - based on their religious authority - that it is alright, doesn't make the situation better. The final result will be that the population will abandon a religion which is against their inborn instinct and will turn to other more acceptable faiths.
Colin, with all due respect you have monumetally and drastically misunderstood what I was saying. I was not, and did not at any time, argue in favour of placing a child with a homosexual couple for adoption. What I said, if you would be kind enough to re-read my earlier post, was that it is acceptable to place a child with a single homosexual person who is living a chaste life, that is a homosexual person who does not indulge their inclination to have a sexual relationship, or any relationship claiming to be equal in kind to marriage, with a person of their own gender.
You also seem to have a misguided idea that priests run every Catholic agency. Whilst priests may serve on the boards of these agencies, the actual work, and often chair and decision making functions are carried out by lay people.
You also seem to think, or at least give the impression that you think, that Catholic teaching is made up based on the whims of Catholic clergy. Catholic teaching (although doubtless Lord Cranmer may disagree) is based on the living tradition of the Church, and on scripture. A lot of Catholic teaching is also based on reason and rational argument. This is especially true of Catholic morality.
Furthermore, I should point out to you that Catholic priests are required to undertake a course lasting at least 5-7 years, during which they undertake academic degress in philosophy and theology, to say nothing of the many priests who pursue further studies across a wide range of subjects.
If you are going to disagree with me, please at least do me the courtesy of reading what I actually write.
Bob,
Thanks for your kind advise "I would suggest you actually read Dominus Iesus before commenting on it's contents"
I trust that you, the recusant and all the other excellent theologicians on this blog are able to read it and to report correctly about it's main points. In my humble view, the fact that the doctrines of Catholic Church have often been wrong in the past centuries (e.g sun turns around the earth) and are not infrequently changed, suggests that might be wrong again. Moreover, I do not believe in the infalliability of any human being and can't see why a falliable human being suddenly becomes infalliable by the act of being elected as Pope.
I only comment on His Grace's postings and your comments. If your comments are correct, they should be able to stand the test of reason. If your ideas cannot pass this test if challenged and you are unable to provide additional evidence, then your ideas are wrong. These are the rules of any academic or honest debate. The claim that the opponent should first read this or that or something else, is not an acceptable defense for your thesis. You would fail any doctoral exam (including in theology) with such a defense.
Just saw your last comment before pushing the submit button. You are right that you did not talk about a homosexual couple. But does this make the situation any better? Ask children from broken homes. They nearly always feel hurt that they don't have both parents. If a single homosexual adopts a child, it has two problems, i.e. a homosexual single parent and the lack of the second parent. That would be acceptable if there weren't enought straight and married couples available willing to adopt a child. However, many heterosexual couples want to adopt a child but don't have the opportunity.
Colin, I was not sitting an exam. You did not read what I wrote correctly. It is as simple as that. It is a matter of complete indifference to me if I would fail a doctoral examination because of it.
You are looking at the issue of a single chaste homosexual person adopting a child in sociological terms. I am looking at in terms of moral theology. They are two different fields and therefore two completely different arguments.
You completely misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallibility because you subscribe to the myth that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. He is not. The Pope, for example, cannot pronounce tomorrow that a cow’s milk is purple in colour. He would be wrong. Papal infallibility is restricted to those times when the Pope speaks on behalf of the entire Church on matters of faith and morals. This is a very, very infrequent occurrence.
And yes, there have been times when the Catholic Church has gotten things wrong. Show me an institution made up of flawed human beings that hasn’t. But time tends to teach us, and our understanding of the world and how it works in the 21st century, and the understanding of the world and how it worked in the 16th century are vastly different, and any assessment of historical controversies should be viewed in that light.
I do beg of you, Colin, to read what it is the Catholic Church actually teaches before you condemn it. The various documents are available in a multitude of languages on the Vatican's website. If after reading them you wish to condemn them then that is your perogative, but at least condemn them for what they acutally say, and not what you think they might say, or what you've been told they say.
Colin, you do seem to get the papists running around a bit buut here goea (again)
“Then, what do people need the Church for,”
Why do you need your family, where do you learn your first lessons in life, who teaches you right from wrong? Who guides you and teaches you to love. Church is not a building, neither is it a Pope, bishop or priest, it is the family of Christ who is head of His Church. Jesus Christ instituted his Church on earth, this was understood by the Apostles and the Church Fathers 'Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations'. (Matt. 28:19)
“Why should they pay priests? “
Because if they don’t they’ll stave and that’s just not right, I wouldn’t even starve a Vicar (only just a joke!).
But apart from that surely you would agree that the New Testament authorises leaders of the Church to be pastors, deacons, bishops. Romans 15:16. Paul speaks of himself in these words: "to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Paul’s use of "to act as a priest" (hierourgeo) fits with the Catholic Church’s understanding of a priest as one who intercedes for the people of God as an intermediary. The priest today, like Paul, offers the people back to God in union with the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the great high priest through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, just as the Church fathers did.
Perhaps you are unaware that priests in the Catholic Church are also called presbyters, which is usually translated as "elders" in most English Bibles. They are the elders who guide the Church under the authority of the bishops (called episkopoi in the New Testament).
“and why this resistance against the Islamization of Europe? “
Ahh we seem to have shot off on a tangent here and I can only second guess the Pope and no doubt I will be wide of the mark but in good faith this is my understanding. I started out thinking of all the reasons and arguments but I think it boils down to Good Fences make Good Neighbours. Not much else to say on that really
“It is all between the individual and Christ, right?”
In the end yes it is, we will all stand before Christ and give an account for the life he gave us. Thomas More said to the Duke of Norfolk
Norfolk: Look, I'm not a scholar, and frankly I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not - but damn it, Thomas, look at these names! You know these men! Can't you do as I did and come along with us for fellowship?
To which More replies:
More: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come along with me - for fellowship?
Thomas believed it so much he died for it; I hope to meet him one day. I think Christ may show us just how much we loved and how much we could have loved, in that moment we will know just why we were made and I think we will understand the sacrifice of the resurrection, whether we can stand that knowledge or not is the $64,000 question.
Finally Show me one single piece of authorised Catholic Church teaching that stated the sun rotated around the earth. Let me save you the trouble there isn’t any. Before Galileo (I presume that is who you will turn to next) there was a bloke called Nicolaus Copernicus (who was a Catholic Priest and used to lecture in astronomy and mathematics at the Vatican) any how Galileo took his ideas, developed them and started shouting around the place the bible is wrong because…. Now he was silenced in the end, not because he taught something the Church denied, it didn’t, because he started to tell people the bible was wrong. Think about it, Peter was a fisherman, where did he think those boats went to when they disappeared over the horizon, fell off the edge?
If you get the privilege to visit the Vatican you may see the maps of the world painted next to the sisteen chapel. Date them and date Galileo.
To interrupt the Colin v Bob argument: His Grace says:
"The world is broken; marriages fail; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and love can abound in the most surprising of places. If the Roman Catholic Church is only prepared to entertain couples as potential adoptive parents provided they are heterosexual, it begs the question as to how it pastors its own single parents, who manifestly fall short of its marital ideal."
Surely the point is that homosexuals openly embrace their sin, and regard it as not only forgivable, but also as being a good thing. Others who sin, attempt to avoid sinning, and feel guilt when they do sin. There is a manifest difference between a willing, indeed a proud, sinner, and one who regrets and seeks forgiveness for his sin. As his Grace says, everyone sins, and therefore the latter type of sinner may be a fit person to raise children. However, the former type of person is not.
I'm afraid I'm with the Papists on this one.
Hmm. I did not expect Cranmer to take this line - the real shame is that the C of E isn't with the Romans on this, I think, or that neither Church is against placing kids with anyone other than heterosexual Christian couples.
Hmm. I did not expect Cranmer to take this line -
What? Via Media?
Colin,
"I do not believe in the infallibility of any human being and can't see why a fallible human being suddenly becomes infallible by the act of being elected as Pope."
You have it spot on Colin; The Magisterium does not teach that the person of the Pope is infallible. The Pope can make mistakes, if he were infallible he would not be a sinner but perfect and we know of only two who were Perfect, The Blessed Virgin and Jesus Christ, Oh I just know you are going to go for that one. SO here is a challenge Colin what does the Catholic Church teach about infallibility and on what scripture does it base this on traditionally?
I am hearted with the recent support of Canterbury and York today, and on a similar note if you find there is no loner a place in the Anglican Communion for that most excellent man The Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali pass him over we have a place waiting for him, he would be a most welcome addition.
Bob, My congratulations sir on your outstanding explanation of the Churches teaching on this matter I could not have explained it half as well. I share with you the perception that quite a few of our separated brethren seem to think our faith was knocked up on the back of a fag packet 10 minutes ago just to be awkward. However I am always heartened when an aspect is explained, most respect the position as sound and with good reason even if they do not agree.
Pax Vobiscum
Et cum spiritu tuo
If your Grace will allow me to de-lurk for a moment -
The outrage we are hearing from our politicians and media chatterers with regard to the Bishop of Westminster's statement (and now its support by Canterbury and York) is, I believe, both wholly expected and wholly dangerous for any Christian organisation in Britain.
It is expected because it comes from the usual assumption that only irrational prejudice can lead to the conviction that homosexuality is morally less-than-perfect; it is not a position that can be taken by persons of intellect, education and good will. As result, the assumption goes, the moral theological position of the bishop/s cannot be a theologically derived, intellectually rigorous and consistent conviction honestly arrived at. As such, the practices that follow logically from the predujice both can and should be legislated against.
And this is where the danger for all Christian organisations comes in. The State is essentially determining the theology of Church of Rome by Parliamentary fiat. That cannot be good for anyone.
Thank you. I shall return to lurking now.
I have to say I agree entirely with your post. Especially the part about there being children who desperately need loving homes and we shouldn't be restricting their access to them.
If the Roman Catholic Church is so prioritising the needs of the child, why is it prepared to place vulnerable children with heterosexual Muslims (a faith about which the Cardinal has already expressed a certain disquiet), but not homosexual Christians?
Hear bloody hear!
Surely this is one of the greatest muddles that Blair and his government have got themselves into, entirely beholden to pressure and lobby groups (and the PM's wife), and legislating where it is not necessary!
Your Grace,
If I may
"Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has threatened the Government with the closure of his adoption agencies if they are obliged to conform to the law."
This is not quite true. Although supported financially by the RCC the Catholic Adoption Agencies are not able to survive without government money. So the truth is if the RCC will not abandon its values under government pressure (and it won't) the government will withdraw all funding. The Catholic Adoption Agencies will be forced to close from lack of funding. Not through a fit of pique.
"the closet-Catholic PM"
Interesting, this is a man who has abstained or voted against the Church position on every occasion in the house. Just Last month he openly criticised the Churches position on Condoms (Lets not go there). He was told by the last Archbishop of Westminster not to present himself for communion as he was in the habit of doing. It is popular speculation but I think he has a long way to go to cross the Tiber.
"Anglican Church, the policy is to place children with couples or individuals who are assessed according to their suitability and to the needs of the child."
That is their position and their right. I don’t feel it is our business to tell them to change because we may disagree on religious grounds, unless they are harming the child.
"While the traditional family unit is being challenged on all fronts, it is not for the Church – any denomination – to assert a blanket ban upon any human being in the provision of social service."
Fully agree, within the traditional family.
"it begs the question as to how it pastors its own single parents, who manifestly fall short of its marital ideal."
With love, respect, support and hopefully understanding within the family of the Church.
"Cranmer wonders which is the lesser evil here. If the Roman Catholic Church is so prioritising the needs of the child, why is it prepared to place vulnerable children with heterosexual Muslims (a faith about which the Cardinal has already expressed a certain disquiet), but not homosexual Christians?"
The Church does not teach, “Accept the lesser of two evils and that will be all right”. I trust you use the adjective vulnerable in the sense that all children are vulnerable, placing a Child with Muslim Parents would (I presume) involve a Muslim child, who else would be a better parent? We were accused after the war of not returning Jewish children to their parents because the children had been baptised catholic, Shock horror I hear you say, no a baptismal certificate saved the child’s life in Europe from being sent to the extermination camps. The church perhaps was a little slow in some cases but 20+ million refugees moving around and being as sure as possible parent were who they claimed to be took a little longer. Imagine the outcry let alone the injustice of placing Muslim children with Christian families and forcibly baptising them, who would condone such an act.
Your Grace
As usual, highly perceptive and erudite.
I hope I do not lower the tone of the discourse by observing that perhaps the Catholic Church is not in the strongest of positions in making such criticisms:
With allegations of priesthood peadophialia a world-wide phenonomen, perhaps children are better off in a loving home rather than left in the care of the Church.
Pope JP2 rescued a Jewish orphan in Poland during the war & made sure it would be brought up in the Jewish faith.
This latest insistence by the Govt is totalitarian, for all their proclaimed love of "diversity". They are also, in little apparently unimportant ways, enrolling the Church in conforming marriage to homosexual partnerships. We must all subscribe to the same view of gayness & its accompanying practices. We have ways of making you tolerant.
Kris - just because the Church has been let down by the people who represent it, that does not ipso facto invalidate the Church's moral arguments. It seems to be to be the equivalent of saying I will refuse to read my letters because I don't like the postman.
Does your the logic of your argument mean, then, that every policy or moral argument put forward by an organization becomes invalid if individual members within that organization were found guilty of crimes? If so, then the Tory party has no choice but to disband immediately, along with, I would safely guess, every other political party in the world.
The savagely hysterical back drop to all this is that it is virtually impossible for any number of white average couples (especially) to make any progress at all with the national disgrace , that is the adoption agencies. Their racism is staggering their inefficiency is tragic and meanwhile children end up in accomodation considerably less salubrious than her majesties prisons ( that is not a joke ).
It really is hard to see how the position could get much worse.As there would clearly be any number of more deserving cases for the gay men who want child its hard to see how the position would arise. ARe they seriously going to be placed on an equal footing with anormal home ...theer are many perefctly good reasons why that should not be . have you any idea of the checks over years instituted against the possibility of ...god knows what
There should be little of practical import then and I wonder if this really is chiefly irritating by association with many other Liberalising measures forced on an unwilling population by the political elite.
The relevance is symbolic . It breaks the bond of mother , father and baby and by inference and chips once mor at the centrality of the family to the nation
I will refuse to read my letters because I don't like the postman.
Mr Bob,
His Grace's postman is a gentleman of Asian extraction, and His Grace would therefore be arrested for 'racism'.
Your contributions to this thread have brought no end of pleasure to His Grace, and he is always immensely keen to give his Roman Catholic cousins ample opportunity to expound their doctrinal beliefs to the Separated Brethren.
His Grace is not quite as ignorant on such matters as some communicants imply (or, indeed, state quite overtly).
On this particlar topic, he can't help feeling that the Cardinal and the Bishops of the Church of England are pontificating prematurely. Yes, the imminent law has profound consequences, but the response should not be to threaten the adoption agencies with closure, thereby terminating a source of hope for hundreds of orphans each year. His Grace is of the opinion that these agencies should continue exactly as they have always done, and then, in the event of complaint about 'homophobia', let the accusations be made, the charges be brought, and the whole thing be played out in the courts, in the full glare of the media.
Judicial pronouncements establish precedents, and it is such a process that is purposely designed to ensure that parliamentary laws are interpreted fairly, in the context of 'real life'. Precedents may then be established which may undermine the statute, and 'exceptions' may be made even though they are 'in tension' with the letter of the law.
Lord Cranmer, your comments are kind indeed, given that I feel I have rather hijacked this thread, so my apologies for that.
In reference to your desire that the orphanages remain open, I can see the logic of your argument, and have much sympathy for it. However, in the current climate of a dictatorship of uniformity of thought and opinion in regard to the issue of homosexual unions and adoption rights I cannot foresee the outcome of any judicial proceedings producing a judgement in favour of the Church. Perhaps I am pessimistic. In any case such a judgement would force the closure of Catholic adoption agencies. They could not continue to function under the new legislation and remain Catholic.
I also think that it is better to take a stand. The cardinal (no pun intended) virtue of fortitude is one which is sorely lacking in the world today. Sometimes it is better to stand up and act than to sit back and wait.
I do hope that you continue to read your letters. Your first arrest may be seen as unfortunate, your second arrest might be seen as careless.
Your Grace,
Given that the Muslims have their own parliament, gays their mouthpiece organisations like Stonewall, and black folk have the CRE and whatever else, who is representing the interests of white, heterosexual, married people?
I used to think that you did. You may remember us as the indigenous people of these islands who breed children for others to blow up, abuse and call honky.
it is not for the Church – any denomination – to assert a blanket ban upon any human being in the provision of social service.
It is not really for Social Services to do so either Your Grace, but the ideological rigidities of Social Services Departments do place impediments upon adoption on categories such as age and race, and poor Mrs Ritchie had to find solace in Malawi as a 47-year old woman in search of adoption.
I really find it preposterous that the theological positions of The Catholic Church are to be condemned but the Secular Humanist Ideological Position of social workers are somehow to be revered. I confess I had not expected such lapses of concentration from His Grace.
One must begin at some stage to question the legitimacy of The State itself. It is clear that Labour has gold-plated yet another EU Directive in this Frattini- Year of Diversity. The issue becomes one our 17th Century forebears appreciated better than ourselves - that of Leviathan - forcing its way into our very consciences. After the events of the 20th Century one might have expected a little more alacrity on the part of the thinking population as the Secular Priesthood of Lawyers seeks ever greater powers of persecution and inquisition.
Colin fished up the old red-herring of Galileo but forgets that it was not in fact The Vatican which stipulated the geocentric view of the universe but Claudius Ptolemaeus, known to the world as Ptolemy who used a system of epicycles to codify Greek theory on planetary orbits.
It was in fact conventional wisdom until 1543 when Mikolaj Kopernik, a Polish Church official in Wroclaw developed a heliocentric view of the world - it was this proposition that Galileo subscribed to.
It was simply conventional wisdom for 1000 years - longer than the Newtonian system lasted before Einstein. I would hate today to have any politician lay down any principle in Physics and we saw in Stalinist Russia what happened when Lysenko was let loose with his crackpot theories on plant genetics.
The point is that The State does not have a monopoly on Knowledge or Wisdom, but it should not believe it is the keeper of men's souls.
BTW Bob.....your first post on this thread was excellent and your subsequent efforts built upon that forceful exposition.!
I really find it preposterous that the theological positions of The Catholic Church are to be condemned but the Secular Humanist Ideological Position of social workers are somehow to be revered. I confess I had not expected such lapses of concentration from His Grace.
His Grace has neither condemned their theology nor exalted secular humanism to a superior status. Indeed, the doctrines of the latter are antithetical to the former, and he rejects the presumed moral superiority and facade of enlightenment they purport to bestow. His Grace happens to believe that God is above both the state and any man-made belief system. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. The Word did not become state to dominate and coerce. The state is not the Word; all things were not made by it. The Word therefore stands, pre-eminent.
Thank you for your kind words Voyager.
Dear Bob
The logic of my argument is that the child's needs should come first.
I doubt the child's needs are best served in an institution (which has form) when there maybe a family out there who would love to raise a child and give a kid a chance.
Kris, the presumption in law is innocent until proven guilty, so unless you're willing to make a provable case against every single member of the Catholic Clergy then I don't think the "form" you mention has any bearing on this current situation.
As I pointed out elsewhere there seems to be a perpetual myth that priests run every facet of every Catholic organisation or insitution. Most Catholic institutions or organisation are staffed by and mostly run by lay people, not priests. So then you would also have to make a provable case against every Catholic lay person working in these insitutions or organisations. If you can prove them guilty then by all means condemn them. If you can't then you have to, under law, assume innocence, regardless of "form."
I think the needs of the child are best served by being raised in an environment where there is a maternal and a paternal figure who will be able to give the child the complimentary love and care of those genders. It is the most natural thing in the world, and therefore, in my view, the best environment in which to raise a child.
"The logic of my argument is that the child's needs should come first.
I doubt the child's needs are best served in an institution (which has form) when there maybe a family out there who would love to raise a child and give a kid a chance."
That was precisely my point. Thank you Kris for saying much shorter and clearer than I was able to do.
No Kris the logic of your argument is that where a system has failed to protect children it should be prevented from any involvement in child contact/care in the future
“Two men who sexually abused young boys placed in their foster care have been sent to prison.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109518.stm?ls
How does your argument hold now?
Kris,
You Say "an institution (which has form)"
The institution you refer to is the Catholic Adoption Agency
Please provide the evidence of your claim.
Voyager,
Glad that you joined the discussion. I was already missing your comments.
You hit the nail on the head with "The issue becomes one our 17th Century forebears appreciated better than ourselves - that of Leviathan - forcing its way into our very consciences. After the events of the 20th Century one might have expected a little more alacrity on the part of the thinking population as the Secular Priesthood of Lawyers seeks ever greater powers of persecution and inquisition."
However, "Colin fished up the old red-herring of Galileo but forgets that it was not in fact The Vatican which stipulated the geocentric view.."; the history of science wasn't the issue of the discussion but the Catholic Church's claim of infalliability.
Bob,
You are an intelligent man which I highly respect and I didn't ask you for "sitting an exam". The issue was the debating style. If person X gives as proof of his point "You first have to read text A" instead of providing the proof himself, than person Y has the same right and may retort "But you first have to read text B". That's a parody of a debate.
Evidence and logic are the material of a debate and not the exchange of reading lists. You are absolutely correct that I did not read most of the texts of the Catholic Church and millions of other books. No human being is able to read everything. It's absolutely no problem for me or any other person to provide you with a long list of books you didn't read yet, but which might be relevant for the topic.
Should it really necessary that you first read all the books on my reading list before you are permitted to share your knowledge with me and give me your view? I don't think so. Because if I read and understood the texts on my reading list, I should be able to provide you with the essential points. And the same holds for the texts on your reading list. Together, we know more than each of us alone. If we exchange our knowledge and views, we might be wiser after discussing a topic than before. I have to admit that I didn't get much wiser this time, except for the history of paganism as explained by the Recusant. Maybe next time ... Or maybe I am simply to stupid to grasp the subtleties of theology as well as you do although I was taught for three years philosopy and ethics by the professors of theology at a Catholic university. Although I passed all their exams, I wasn't impressed by what they taught such as Teilhard de Chardin and all that stuff. Thus, if you need a reading list of Catholic teachings just let me know.
it ain't just the head of the catholic adoption agency that is complaining- it is Cardnial Cormac Mc What'sits. He is speaking for the Catholic Church- not just the agency. I regret to pass on the news that the Church has form.
Now you can answer a question? Why should an institution's "principles" take precedence over what's best for the child?
oh yeah, I forgot to add: -
especially when that institution receives government funding..
Now you can answer a question? Why should an institution's "principles" take precedence over what's best for the child?
in which case the UK must be made entirely secular. Does this mean we have to get rid of the Church of England and all those bishops sitting in the Lords?
Timmy,
Your criticism of Kris' statement based on singular cases is unfounded. Cases can be found for everything and their opposite. No general conclusions can be drawn from a few cases( e.g. men bit dog). For more general conclusions, a sufficient large sample is necessary (and this shows that mostly dogs bit men). Another example, you can always find a few cases of mothers who killed their child. But in general, a child is much better with its mother than in institutional care including forster parents.
Studies of large numbers show that as Kris said, a family who loves to raise a child and give a kid a chance is better than any institutional care. The disastrous effects of maternal deprivation and institutional care on child behavioral development has been well studied in animals as well as in humans. Hence, Kris is right.
Colin, I shall attempt to be as clear as possible.
At 10.58pm I suggested you read that the document Dominus Iesus
Your comment in response to me at 11.18pm made it clear that you had not properly read or understood my previous posts regarding the issue of adoption by homosexual couples. I pointed this out.
These are two seperate points. They are not related to each other. You seem to have in some way combined them in some way that I do not understand.
As this is my first contribution, I must say that I have found Your Grace's examinations of religio-political agendas to be of exemplary quality these past many months. However, I do wonder whether Your Grace has been partaking of the wrong type of food these last few days or has been overcome by another type of malady? Firstly, Your Grace's comments on the pronouncements of Bishop Harper were equivocal to say the least (though I will not dwell on them here). Then, Your Grace 'adopts' (Your Grace will pardon the pun) this most strange position with respect to this relatively straightforward matter.
Your Grace's communicants Dr Syn and Recusant have spoken correctly on this matter. Recusant has addressed the issue of why Christian adoption agencies would not necessarily have reservations regarding placing a child with Muslim parents. If the child is from that religious background and there is a Muslim family wishing to adopt the child, why should the said agency do otherwise than place the said child with the said parents?
Now, I will address two other points. Firstly, Your Grace asks why the Catholic adoption agencies would place a child with a single adult who is homosexual and not a couple. Should Your Grace's description of current policy be correct, then this would be perfectly justifiable for two reasons. Firstly, the agency will probably not know that the individual concerned is homosexual (how could it know?) and, secondly, even if it, the individual may have decided to observe chastity in spite of homosexual temptations. Your Grace must recall that it is homosexual acts which are condemned in the Bible.
This leads on to my second point. Your Grace appears to equate homosexual relationships with other sins through the words 'all have sinned'. In terms of magnitude, Your Grace may be correct (God will ultimately decide). However, there is great difference in terms of intention. When we confess our sins, we profess to use Your Grace's own ingenious crafted words, "We do earnestly repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us, the burden of them is intolerable" and petition the Lord that "we may ever hereafter serve and please Thee in newness of life". However, those who are in a homosexual relationship cannot seriously mean these words as they are still committed to future sinning through their relationship. This is a critical point on Christian views on homosexuality.
I should also like to point out to Your Grace that it is instructive to consider issues whilst remembering who supports each side of the debate. The reason that this is important is that it usually provides a good guide to how the said law will be implemented. Your Grace's communicant Bob has reached a similar conclusion to my own, that the law will be implemented to compel Christian adoption agencies to permit homosexual couples to adopt. This interpretation is also agreed by all protagonists in the debate.
Kris - if we adopt your "form" argument then I'm afraid we all have to completely disregard anything and everything Cranmer has to say with reagrd to the government of Britain as he has "form" for committing treason.
The Germans and Russians have "form" for committing genocide so I guess we better stop buying Volkswagens and BMWs and stop drinking Vodka.
The Australians have "form" as convicts so England should definitelty stop playing the Ashes against them (although that might actually be charitable given the last result).
The Italians have "form" as facists so definitely no more pasta or wine.
Or is your "form" argument solely confined to Catholics, and can you therefore explain how that's consistent and ethical?
Wow, 57 comments!
His Grace ought to be congratulated for having chosen a stimulating topic. The priority of interest is surprising me: Economy, EU and freedom doesn't arouses only a few. However, when it comes to religious differences, people get very excited as if their life depend on it. Does His Grace have any statistics on the numbers and lengths of comments in relationship to the topics of his posts?
Mr Colin,
His Grace most certainly does, but nothing approaches the vehemence and frequency of posts which follow anything on the subject of Islam.
Islam appears to be to have become to the 21st-century United Kingdom what Roman Catholicism was to 16th-century England.
Everything else about which His Grace posts pales into relative insiginifance. If he recalls correctly, his post on the Islamic Day at Alton Towers tops the poll, exceeding 100 posts. Bizarre.
Bob,
In response to your last comment at 9:27 pm:
You said: "At 10.58pm I suggested you read that the document Dominus Iesus" I told you already several times that I do not accept this kind of debate, i.e. to give the discussants homework in the form of a reading list instead of a clearly stated argument. If you want to debate with me, say by yourself what you consider relevant and important to disprove my argument.
Furthermore, you said: "you had not properly read or understood my previous posts"
That's possible. If I am too dumb to understand your wise words the first time, could you be so kind to state again briefly in one or two sentences your point of view.
My point is that I am against the adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples because - with a high probability - it is contrary to the wishes and interests of the children as long as an alternative, i.e. an adoption by heterosexual couples, is available.
In regard to my argument, are you able to answer two simple questions:
(1) Are you for an adoption by homosexual singles or couples? Yes or No?
(2) If you are for it, why ?
His Grace,
Thank you for this important information which confirms what I suspected but was afraid to ask directly. It is an indication of the danger of another religious war if the migration trend continues.
Kris
"Cardnial Cormac Mc What'sits"
My Lord Cranmer I appeal to your grace to censure your communicant Kris for his impertinent and discourteous reference to His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. He is after all the spiritual head of over 1 million Catholics in England and deserves at least the same courtesy and respect we give to out separated brethren when represented by your Grace.
Colin
Firstly, I have stated on several occasions throughout this discussion that I am not in favour of adoption by homosexual couples. That point was clear from my first post. From the responses to my posts everyone seems to have understood this except you. I stated it blatantly on several occasions. That you failed to see that if simply proof that you were not reading my posts properly.
Secondly, at 10.40 you saw fit to agree with Lord Cranmer's opinion of Dominus Iesus. You saw fit to comment upon something you knew nothing about. For me that is the intellectual equivalent of someone attempting to provide an analysis of Hamlet without having taken the time to read the play. You interpret this as me giving you homework, and proceed to lecture me about the correct way to conduct a debate. How you think it is possible to interpret something without taking the time to read it first simply baffles me. I know that you are very much in awe of Lord Cranmer's intellectual capacities, and indeed they seem to be formidible, but I would have thought you would have wished to to form an opinion of your own by engaging with the actual material.
Colin,
Bob has made his position clear I feel, the position is that of the Catholic Church (correct me if I am wrong Bob). Adoption is available to a married man and wife meeting the adoption requirements of the CAA and the Law of the land. Adoption is available to single people meeting the same requirements although I would expect slightly more careful vetting and provision exercised in this case. Adoption is not available to same sex cohabiting couples or individuals with an 'active' social life centring on the proverbial sex, drugs and rock and roll; this would be an unsuitable environment to expose a child to.
Bobs references to documents are licit as it would be unreasonable and rude to reproduce them in full on His Graces Blog, would you not agree. However Bob seems to be saying that the issue of reading Dominus Iesus, a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church is not in any way related to homosexuality and adoption. Lines, he thinks may have got a little crossed, however and I think this is important, I see no reference to your intelligence quotient on this Blog, no one has intimated, to use you own words, that you are "too dumb to understand".
I believe we, you and I (I presume also to include Bob) are not too far apart on our collective position in who would make suitable adoptive parents, but as in life there are complexities and rarely do they fall into "are you for or against". This is not the cop-out you may feel, the whole issue of homosexual adoption is a bolt of lightning for a church that thinks in centuries rather than years, you can expect a considered answer in, Oh I’d say the year 2257.
Bob and Recusant,
Obviously, we seem to agree on the adoption issue. Our disagreement started when I concluded from His Grace's 9:49 PM comment "the Catholic Adoption Agency admits that it already places children with single homosexuals" that the Catholic Church supports adoption by homosexuals. I didn't know were His Grace got the information from but normally he is well informed about religious matters. Therefore, I didn't and still don't see any reason to believe that the Catholic Adoption Agency does not place children with homosexuals.
Another point His Grace made was that the Catholic Church claims the monopoly for salvation and therefore it wouldn't be right from their point of view to deny the children the possibility of salvation by placing the children with couples of different faith.
I said that His Grace's view is logically consistent and the actions of the Catholic Church inconsistent with their own doctrine, again assuming that His Grace reported correctly the Catholic doctrine. Immediately, Bob started to lecture me that I first should read a certain document of the Catholic Church before opening my mouth. In my view this is a rather arrogant attitude. Bob could simply have said that my or His Grace's statement is incorrect and could have provided a reference as proof, preferably as a link so that everyone can check it out.
In regard to Bob's accusation that I am lecturing him about the right way to conduct a debate, I would like to point out that I am simply reminding him on the centuries old rules of the game already used in the debats of the Catholic scholastic scholars. We do not have to reinvent the wheel in this regard. Without acceptance or knowledge of the rules of - for example - the soccer game, it doesn't make any sense to discuss different opinions about who has won a certain soccer game. The same reasoning applies to intellectual debates.
Sorry but I am getting tired about so much useless discussions. But it was sure nice talking to you. Have a good night!
Colin, frankly I'm too tired and frustrated to continue this senseless discussion with you. I've made my position abundantly clear. Everyone else seems to understand what I'm saying, even if they don't agree with me. I can therefore only conclude that the problem, whatever it is, lies with you.
As for providing you with a link - I provided you with the name of the document. I told you that all the Church's documents are available on the Vatican website. If you didn't have the initiative to to put two and two together on that one then that's not my problem.
Recusant and I provided, I think it's fair to say, quite a lot of counter arguments to Cranmer's claims about the Church and salvation. You chose for some reason to be blind to these. Again not my problem.
So either you are just not reading what either of us were saying or you're accepting everything Cranmer says as beyond doubt, which is odd for a man who claimed not to believe that any one man is infallible. Either way debating with you has been like being stoned to death with popcorn.
good point your grace.. heavy activity on your blog one notices..
This whole issue arises from EU Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 which I think should be read
EU
with its reference to 2. Gender mainstreaming shall be promoted in all sections of and activities under the Programme.
This is but the first stage on a path to bring the Westminster Assembly into conformity with EU Federal Law. I am surprised Frattini has not asked President Barroso to dismiss the British Cabinet for hesitation.
As for Kris....as a Non-Catholic let me discuss your charge of pederasty against The Roman Catholic Church as we discuss the unsuitability of Social Services Departments to be involved in anything after Victoria Climbie, Lauren Creed, Toni-Ann Byfield, et al and all the false allegations viz Orkney etc.
The Roman Church issued a Guidance in 1962 worldwide for screening of all candidates for seminaries. The US Church flushed with 1960s bonhomie ignored it completely and harvested a good crop of pederasts many of whom went on to notoriety and death from AIDS especially clustered in certain dioceses.
The bulk of the interference with minors and juniors involved pederasty. What point you choose to make by reference to this is unclear. One might conclude that neither the Catholic Church nor Social Services Departments should be anywhere near children; or that pederasts should be purged from working with children and profiled. Currently the whole population has to pay Capita for a Persilschein from the Criminal Records Bureau before working with children - and must apply for each separate activity - viz. a doctor having one to work with children in hospital must obtain a second clearance to work with children in a nursery
This screens the whole population rather than profiling the problematic but does not cover foreigners - so you can come from Bulgaria or Zimbabwe and work in a nursery because clearance is not possible so you are presumed clear.
The whole situation is farcical. We are talking in the case of the Catholic Adoption agencies with "problematic children" which i suppose means they may have been "abused" sexually, morally, physically; or themselves be abusers with no