Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Three cheers for Catholic Care

It is with great delight that His Grace has learned that the Leeds-based adoption charity Catholic Care is to appeal against the April judgement which determined that it could not change its own constitutional objects to exclude homosexual couples.

The Charity Tribunal has confirmed that Catholic Care has applied for an appeal against the decision to the Upper Tribunal. If that appeal is granted, it will be the charity's fourth appeal.

You have to admire their tenacity. His Grace has consistently urged, supported and exhorted the charity to pursue this to its litigious end, not least because it consitutes a fundamentally important point of religious liberty: when the state determines to outlaw centuries of orthodox belief and practice on the basis of 'equality', there is no logical end to what the state may impose upon believers.

The charity facilitates about five adoptions a year: it is absurd to suggest that homosexual couples who wish to adopt are being discriminated against by this group. The charity is persuaded that their supporters will cease their donations if they are obliged to place children with homosexual couples. They argue that the Equality Act 2010 allows discrimination on the grounds of sexuality if this is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

There are, of course, some who will view it unacceptably bigoted of the charitry to seek to place children with heterosexual couples. There are others who will question the Christian conviction of donors who might cease their charitable giving should Catholic Care be obliged to consider homosexual couples. Still others would like to see them closed down altogether, along with all religious groups in receipt of public funds.

But this is not a question of ‘homophobia’ (though the allegations will flow), and neither is it some irrational prejudice: most Christians will reasonably agree that there may be instances where placing children with a single parent or a homosexual couple is preferable to a loveless life in a local authority children’s home. This is about the Christian conscience and the freedom to act in accordance with it. This April judgement made it clear that there is now no question that Christians may no longer manifest their beliefs in the public sphere on this issue of sexual ethics: they may no longer worship God in spirit and in truth in their daily lives; they may no longer make their bodies a living sacrifice or act in accordance with their consciences, biblical teaching or Church history

When the last appeal was lost, Bishop Arthur Roche said: 'It is unfortunate that those who will suffer as a consequence of this ruling will be the most vulnerable children for whom Catholic Care has provided an excellent service for many years. It is an important point of principle that the Charity should be able to prepare potential adoptive parents, a service recognised for its excellence by the local authorities who are responsible for placing children, according to the tenets of the Catholic faith.'

Quite.

When Labour were in power, the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith observed: "This is a tragedy. We are taking the ethos out of these adoption agencies and leaving them with a crisis, all because the Government wouldn’t listen."

Well, Labour are no longer in power, but it appears that Conservative hands are tied by being in coalition with the Liberal Democrats who seek to perpetuate the injustice and secularise the nation (if Dr Evan Harris has anything to do with it). It will take a majority Conservative government to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

In the meantime, we must thank God that there are people like Mark Wiggin, the charity's Chief Executive, who is clearly possessed of the stuff of which martyrs are made.

113 Comments:

Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Thank God, indeed.

Let us pray the senior officials of this society go to court better prepared this time and that the Judges respect the right of a Catholic and Christian society to act in accordance with its beliefs.

31 May 2011 16:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am rather ignorant of how these agencies work.

Where do they get the children from?

If they re-home children that have been "donated" to them from parents that can't cope for whatever reason, or had some kind of will, then it seems fair they decide where the children can go.

If the children come from the state (in that social services removed the children, and the charity simply helps rehome them), then I don't see why they should play by the states rules.

?

31 May 2011 16:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(opps, that should have been why they shouldnt play by the states rules).

31 May 2011 16:53  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Read recently that Catholic Charities of Illinois will cease its adoption activities shortly, due to state law that would require them to violate teachings of the church.

Once again, the Left creates chaos in the name of 'justice and fairness'.

31 May 2011 17:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"This is about the Christian conscience and the freedom to act in accordance with it."

Ah, it's a matter of principle then. A pox on them in that case. Like with the ongoing Christian Institute's shenanigans, I hope the appeal fails and precedent is set against. One step closer to religion being pushed into private life if so.

31 May 2011 17:45  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

DanJO - I'm out of sympathy with the Catholic Church on this one too but to speak of 'religion being pushed into private life' is a misunderstanding of what religion is. It's a public thing - and inevitably so given its nature. To seek to push it into the private sphere is an oppressive notion too.

31 May 2011 18:09  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Once upon a time, all these services we receive from the state were provided free of charge by the Church (along with other philanthropic individuals). Slowly, one by one, they were absorbed into the state and stripped of their spiritual base.

As yet another charity is forcibly subsumed I have a question to ask. When the state finally declares itself bankrupt (and by God unless we uncouple some of the more extravagant spendings it will), who will be there to pick up the pieces?

31 May 2011 18:10  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0 I am rather worried about this pushing religion into one's private life idea you have. Faith is an all-encompassing spirituality affecting actions, words, politics, and philosophy. To tell one that the definition of his entire being must be held under a bushel is incredibly illiberal.

We once lived in a society where men who had sex with men were forced to confine it to their private life. No hand holding or kissing in public; no marriage; no gay charities or pressure groups; no rallies or gay pride days. If I were to say that homosexuality were a life-encompassing philosophy you would tell me I was wrong.

So if this is something that you consider only a part of your life, yet you would claim discrimination and illiberality if any part of it were restricted, how can you claim that another man must hide the entirety of his being?

31 May 2011 18:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

jeremy: "DanJO - I'm out of sympathy with the Catholic Church on this one too but to speak of 'religion being pushed into private life' is a misunderstanding of what religion is. It's a public thing - and inevitably so given its nature. To seek to push it into the private sphere is an oppressive notion too."

When I say private life, I mean the sort of private life which includes the common space. So, religious festivals, church fetes, book readings, public discussions, lobbying etc all fall into that. What I'm arguing for is a removal of it from State institutions, schools, State premises, private workplaces if required, and so on. I want religion to be treated like (say) a political affiliation ... which it is essentially. That's not oppressive. If (say) Muslims want to wear burkas in the street the so be it. If Christians want to proselytise in the high street on Saturdays embarrassing themselves then good on 'em. If Hindus want to wear saris and bangles and set off fireworks in November then hurrah. But demanding the rest of us have obligations and duties towards them simply for having religious beliefs is a little more problematic.

31 May 2011 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"We once lived in a society where men who had sex with men were forced to confine it to their private life. No hand holding or kissing in public; no marriage; no gay charities or pressure groups; no rallies or gay pride days."

Luckily, people have recognised that heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same sort of thing, when religious belief is set aside, and therefore it is unjust to discriminate on the basis of one but not the other. If straight people are prevented from holding hands, kissing in public, and forming partnerships then gay people ought to be too under the same argument. Hope this helps.

31 May 2011 18:56  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo - in your dreams...

31 May 2011 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

When Muslims want special exemptions from the animal welfare acts to produce halal meat, who's to say they can't despite our widely held welfare values if they claim it is a significant part of their religion and that it is a matter of conscience for them? Yet halal meat, especially when it allegedly ends up on supermarket shelves for the rest of us too, causes some non-Muslims distress and anger and resentment. Islam seems to be a very public and all-encompassing lifestyle for religious Muslims. Is that carte blanche then?

31 May 2011 19:04  
Anonymous Ex Fundamentalist said...

It's just as well the "Priests" don't want to adopt!!! After all they were they ones buggering the same sex as them in the first place... So don't let decent Homosexuals adopt children but it's ok if Priests abuse young boys...!!! hypocrites...!

31 May 2011 19:38  
Anonymous Ex Fundamentalist said...

Oh yeah and what about all the Nuns that was raped by Priests seeing as we are Cherry Picking out of the Bible what we want to hear... Maybe this is where all the poor wee kids are coming from... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries-688261.html

31 May 2011 19:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be an adoptive parent is not a "right". Priority should be accorded to the welfare of the children being adopted. Research shows that most homosexual relationships are temporary in nature. Given that studies also show that children of divorce/separation die 5 years earlier than average, adoption by homosexuals is tantamount to a death sentence for many children.

31 May 2011 19:55  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Those who ONLY focus on instances of child sex abuse by Catholic clergy are inconsistent in their position. All forms and all instances of child abuse are evil.

Some data from Wikipedia:

According to the United States Department of Education, "nearly 9.6% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career."

In U.S. schools, educators who offend range in age from "21 to 75 years old, with an average age of 28" with teachers, coaches, substitute teachers, bus drivers and teacher's aides (in that order) totaling 69% of the offenders A literature review of 23 studies found abuse rates of 3% to 37% for males and 8% to 71% for females

According to Baker, AW; Duncan, SP (1985). "Child sexual abuse: a study of prevalence in Great Britain.". Child Abuse and Neglect 9 (4): 457–67 about 8% for boys and 12% for girls in the UK have been abused.

A 2007 study found that in India 53.22% of children are reported having faced sexual abuse.

In reality, sexual abuse of minors is a long-term endemic problem throughout a number of institutions, both secular and religious and is present in all cultures.

31 May 2011 20:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "Research shows that most homosexual relationships are temporary in nature."

The important statistic is surely how many relationships where the couple seek an adoption are temporary in nature.

31 May 2011 20:29  
Blogger prziloczek said...

The children who have been dumped onto the state come last in all this.
The anti Christian mob who want to force their narrow minded beliefs onto the unwanted children and the lawyers who stand to make a small fortune out of the proceeds of a charity that should be caring for children are both stealing from the very people they pretend to support.
It must break the charity's heart to have to waste time, enthusiasm and money like this.
But - hey! - who cares.

31 May 2011 20:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "Given that studies also show that children of divorce/separation die 5 years earlier than average, adoption by homosexuals is tantamount to a death sentence for many children."

That's a majestic style of argument, by the way. :)

31 May 2011 20:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It must break the charity's heart to have to waste time, enthusiasm and money like this."

But not enough to simply accept the ruling on the basis that very few gay or lesbian couples would probably go to a Catholic agency to adopt anyway.

31 May 2011 20:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some Statistics
Excerpt:
In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

31 May 2011 21:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even if long term homosexual "partnerships" existed, it does not follow that homosexual adoption is physically and mentally healthy for the child.

31 May 2011 21:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Gay boys and children don't mix, Catholic 'priests' are evidence of that.

31 May 2011 21:32  
Anonymous Jim Callaghan's Ghost said...

"Luckily, people have recognised that heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same sort of thing, when religious belief is set aside"

No Danjo, old cock, there is one difference- one makes life, the other does not.

31 May 2011 22:21  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Danjo is the typical gay- only selfishly posting about matters which affect the gay. OK. I do that too- but what are Danjo's views on his grace's posts on israel- we hear nothing about that from the danjo. Perhaps this is because they conflict with his world view on this hippy "peace man, we all get along man" view he seems to have. Whereas in the real world, gays have to fight for gay rights and one thing I agree with the Viking on is that there is a fight to be had on these matters...

31 May 2011 22:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

GA,

Whenever you're ready :-)

31 May 2011 22:38  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Strange as it may seem to some the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and adoption is concerned with life after death as well as life here on earth.

Seeing the path to eternal salvation being predominantly dependant on christianity and, for baptised Catholics, remaining in communion with the church, is it any wonder they are opposed to adoption by practising homosexuals?

Arguments about the long term stability of homosexual relationships and the alternative to adoption by homosexuals, whilst holding some validity, are, in the main, irrelevant.

Of relevance is being raised as a Roman Catholic as far as is possible, being instructed in the christian faith and remaining in communion with the church.

The State regulates adoption agencies and they have to comply with the law, including equal opportunity legislation. The children placed through Catholic agencies will come from Catholic parents, some who specify they want their children raised as Catholics and who have approached the agency direct. Interestingly, the State has a statutory duty to give 'due consideration' to parental requests about religion and should the route to the Catholic agency be from the State then it is probably as a result of this.

Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality is clear and uncompromising. You may not like it or agree with it but it is clear. It is based on the bible, natural law and theology.

The inclination is seen as an 'objective disorder' and to engage in homosexual acts is seen as grieviously sinful. This is mitigated by what the church sees as a compulsive, habitual element but a practicing homosexual may not receive communion although they are free to attend church services.

Imagine a child being raised as a Catholic and placed with a homosexual couple. Not only would this create an enormous conflict in his/her mind, it would also open the child to role models of sexuality viewed as 'normal' by the couple and disordered and sinful by the church. This may well unsdermine their faith and lead them away from the christian message of truth.

31 May 2011 22:43  
Blogger Owl said...

As usual, the children don't have a say in the matter.

Homosexuals are a very small minority of society.

Children growing with homosexual parents will have a hard time of it as they are automatically "different".

Children rarely used the term "parents", they just say "mum and dad" or in these modern times maybe just "mum".

I think these children will suffer a great deal of "inequality" but then again, the children don't matter.

My tolerance for militant homosexuals is wearing very thin. They seem to me to be rather selfish people.

When I saw pictures of the baby that Elton John had bought, I found it quite sickening. The phrase "poor little bugger" did spring to mind.

31 May 2011 22:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GA: "gays have to fight for gay rights"

Which "rights" are you referring to?

31 May 2011 22:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Ahh, I see. Salvation is dependent on remaining in the cat-lick 'church', and not on Christ's redemptive work on the cross!

Scriptures please.

Owl,

How right you are. Utterly revolting to see a fat, old queen buy a child. Poor thing.

31 May 2011 22:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I seem to have upset someone. Again. :)

31 May 2011 23:54  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Hate the sin - not the sinner!

Christ welcomed sinners and did not sneer at them or throw abusive remarks their way. No, He welcomed them and readily forgave them their sins. One should feel equally uneasy about Madonna buying children as Elton John and terms such as "fat old queen" and "poor little bugger" are surely inappropriate.

Isn't the Way to discuss the error, the sin, and to teach the sinner about the saving grace of Christ?

"Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat." (Jn 8:7)

"Nolite judicare, ut non judicemini. In quo enim judicio judicaveritis, judicabimini : et in qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur vobis." (Mtt 7:1)

In a secular society to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexuality is unacceptable. Like it or not, homosexual couples do raise children and in secular terms many make a success of it.

We are talking here about a Roman Catholic adoption society and whether it should be able to offer a service to Catholic biological parents, children and adoptees based on its founding principles, articles of faith and morals.

I don't like the 'normalisation' of what my faith sees as a disorder and the daily endorsement of homosexual acts. Then I don't like sex before marriage, abortions or IVF on the Health Service.

However, we have to accept not everyone accepts christian or Roman Catholic teaching on these issues. Even christianity is divided on them!

1 June 2011 00:20  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

However, we have to accept not everyone accepts Christian or Roman Catholic teaching on these issues. Even christianity is divided on them!

I like that Christian OR Roman Catholic teaching. Interesting to see that you do not understand these things to be the same thing, neither should you.

My understanding of a Christian is someone that abides by The Word. Please forgive me if I am wrong for thinking this, however I have these 2 pieces of long forsaken scripture to impart to you.

Ephesians 5 22-23

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body.

Ephesians 6 12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in HIGH PLACES.

Which coming for Paul himself, is quite some statement, don't you think?

Therefore it would seem that if their be opposing forces within christianity then there most certainly should not be anything of the kind.

The words are quite clear, feminism is a definite NO NO, as are things like modern day Vatican City, and all that goes with it.

1 June 2011 01:05  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It isnt discriminatory to try and adopt children to heterosexual couples !

My very best whishes to the appeal .

1 June 2011 01:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Last Dodo said "In a secular society to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexuality is unacceptable."


There is no "right" to the privilege of adoption even in a "secular" society. It is necessary to discriminate in order to ensure that the best interests of the child
are protected.

1 June 2011 01:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

'Gay Anglican': "Danjo is the typical gay- only selfishly posting about matters which affect the gay. OK. I do that too- but what are Danjo's views on his grace's posts on israel- we hear nothing about that from the danjo."

Having popped over to that thread, I notice that we see nothing about that from 'Gay Anglican' either ... well, not in that particular guise anyway. ;)

1 June 2011 05:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "My tolerance for militant homosexuals is wearing very thin. They seem to me to be rather selfish people."

Who are these militant homosexuals, Sir Owl? The heterosexuals who brought the laws in and sponsor equality provisions? The homosexuals (incl lesbians) who simply want to adopt a child? Or perhaps people like me who have an opinion about religious matters and shares it in our liberal, free-speaking democracy?

1 June 2011 05:29  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

It is in the interests of the children to have a traditional upbringing.

Not a State indoctrinated one.

If later in life they decide God was wrong a Tony Blair was right, then that is their choice. But alas pervert Preisthoods and stories of how nasty Nuns can be have not helped their cause.

1 June 2011 06:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Speaking of Tony Blair, I seem to remember an allegation that he used the outbreak of hostilities, to shut down a police investigation into Labours involvement with Paedophilia.

Maybe Ken Clarke could look into re-opening that matter.

Although the SNP do not seem helpful over the Holly Greig matter, either.

Thats liberal democracy for you.

1 June 2011 06:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It is in the interests of the children to have a traditional upbringing. Not a State indoctrinated one."

It is. It's also in the interests of the child to be brought up in a home where the parents are educated enough to help with homework, and balanced enough to encourage the child to achieve its potential, and with enough wealth or income to provide for the child's material needs. But we don't always get that for children since in order for a heterosexual couple to to have a child of their own all they need to do is have sex enough times to conceive. So perhaps it's enough to meet the interests of the child to take a holistic view of the environment where the nature of the couple is but one thing to consider out of many and to take up opportunities where they arise to do that rather than write off some opportunities based on personal religious principles.

1 June 2011 06:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ Especially if agencies are acting on behalf of the State.

1 June 2011 06:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sir Owl: "Homosexuals are a very small minority of society."

Indeed. About the same number as church-attending Christians I expect.

1 June 2011 06:46  
Anonymous James said...

'This April judgement made it clear that there is now no question that Christians may no longer manifest their beliefs in the public sphere on this issue of sexual ethics: they may no longer worship God in spirit and in truth in their daily lives; they may no longer make their bodies a living sacrifice or act in accordance with their consciences, biblical teaching or Church history'

The faithful expression of Christian belief without fear of persecution or prosecution may be becoming increasingly restriced by these various court rulings and the general secular leanings of society. However, this does not and should not prevent Christians from being salt and light in the earth. We should continue to speak out strongly, faithfully and above all in love. If this leads to persecution, it should not be a surprise. We should campaign to retain our religious liberties, but as they continue to be erroded we must not stop witnessing and following the teachings of the Bible, whatever the consequences.

And as the Apostle Paul wrote, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'

1 June 2011 08:05  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Luckily, people have recognised that heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same sort of thing

In your dreams DanJo

1 June 2011 08:33  
Anonymous len said...

Quite interesting to see how everyone defends their own particular position regardless of the facts.
It is almost as if they accept they could be wrong their philosophies and their lives would unravel.

Can 'gays' provide a loving and stable home for a child.)leaving aside religion,because the majority of the U K is Christian in name only.

A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300…
The question is can 'gays' with this sort of lifestyle provide a stable environment to bring up a child?

1 June 2011 08:48  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Yes Len, they can and do.

As with any survey of that type, the responses can be suspect and they depend on the methodology used. A magazine survey, for example, depends on its readership. I have had very few sexual partners, I don't read magazines like that, and I don't respond to sexual surveys. Therefore I have not been counted.

I agree though that promiscuity is very high in what is still called the Gay Scene despite the opening up of the means of meeting alike people. Some of that will be historic due to past social restrictions. Also, is it true of lesbians or do they not count in your argument? I doubt it is true myself. But should any of that actually count regarding the principle of adoption by homosexual people?

There's a sense in your argument that if (say) X% of (say) young black men have a criminal record then the 100%-X% of black men without records should not be able to apply for jobs where honesty is important. Which is outrageous when written like that. But then you have a position irrespective of the facts and issues too.

1 June 2011 10:02  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

And Len, welcome to the ground around your former pedestal. I see from recent threads that you're running with the pack now. I suppose the godly image was too tough to maintain afterall.

1 June 2011 10:07  
Anonymous Angelo said...

Parents are a role model for their children, whether the child is adopted or not. Sadly many cases of single parent families result in mixed up kids who act in an anti social way.
One would hope that the equality for all supporters would not expect the same rules to apply to prospective adoptive couples who for example suffer from drug or drink addiction, as clearly these habits would adversley affect the child. As would being raised in a family unit that followed moral guidelines that are different to the accepted norm.
It's not a question of rights or even religion. It's the child in the case that is important and their welfare and protection from the mockery of other children,or the morally questionable impressions that living in a 'gay' environment would result in must take precedence over so called rights of individuals to satisfy their own wishes to adopt.

1 June 2011 10:11  
Anonymous Jon said...

c. 2% of people in the UK attended a CoE church last weekend. That's a lot less than the number of gay and lesbian people in the country. So your demographic argument is basically baloney.

Additionally, the adoption process does consider the welfare of the child paramount, which is why it can take years for anyone, straight couple, gay couple or single, to adopt. However, if you were to use the argument that only the welfare of the child were considered, all children would be ripped from the bosom of their families, and placed with lesbians, as research in several countries has suggested that children of lesbian couples are happier, better adjusted and do better at school. But you don't care about that either.

I give up reasoning, because it's not changing your minds - so I'll give you what you want - a militant stance. When the Church pays taxes like any other business, and when the CoE is disestablished to remove the pernicious influence of old men in frocks from our legislative process, (or when a similar number of jedi knights, imams and gay club promoters are allowed in solely because of their own say so after pointing to their own "holy" books), then we'll have greater equality.

And in the meantime, the tired old arguments that marriage and relationships are about procreation were effectively defeated by the onset of the pill. What's more the church allows elderly divorcees to marry - proving that it's wedded to neither it's principles, nor the notion of marriage for reproduction.

Gay Viking is comfortable with his homophobia (closet much btw!) it's about time the rest of you were too.

1 June 2011 11:21  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Jon @ 11.21 said, 'What's more the church allows elderly divorcees to marry - proving that it's wedded to neither it's principles, nor the notion of marriage for reproduction.'

Fail.

It's obviously beyond your capacity to imagine that 'elderly divorcees' may be both parents and grandparents. As such they remain committed to family life and useful role-models to younger generations.

1 June 2011 12:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

That's it Jon, call your opponent a closet gay when arguing over homosexuality, that's never been tried before, has it ?

Yawn.

1 June 2011 12:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: "Research shows that most homosexual relationships are temporary in nature."
DanJO: The important statistic is surely how many relationships where the couple seek an adoption are temporary in nature.


This is like arguing that only 1% of drunk drivers kill people, therefore the other 99% should be allowed to drive.

1 June 2011 14:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rather pernicious health effects associated woth homosexual behiour place an unfair burden on their adopted children.

1 June 2011 14:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jon: "The tired old arguments that marriage and relationships are about procreation were effectively defeated by the onset of the pill."

No they were not. The Catholic Church has never accepted the pill. Please read HUMANAE VITAE. The pill is an abortifacient. Moreover, most women who abort were on the pill proving that over time it fails. Abortion is the worst form of child abuse. The pernicious effects of the pill are well described inthe site thepillkills.org.

1 June 2011 14:35  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,(10 07)

'running with the pack now',

If that means being a committed Christian and in agreement with those who share a belief in the authority of scripture............well hands up, I plead guilty as charged ......................and proud of it!.For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ps I don`t have a 'godly image'(well not of my own anyway)any Godliness you perceive about me is totally attributable to the Holy Spirit.Left to my own devices I am as ungodly as the next man.

Bless You.

1 June 2011 15:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Someone wanting to be anonymous when commenting like this: "This is like arguing that only 1% of drunk drivers kill people, therefore the other 99% should be allowed to drive."

Perhaps for those who are IQ-challenged. It is more like arguing that those who drink socially are fine to drive and then deal with those who go on to drink and drive as special cases.

1 June 2011 17:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "That's it Jon, call your opponent a closet gay when arguing over homosexuality, that's never been tried before, has it ?"

So are you gay, Viking? It's fine if you are, you know. No need to bother with all that 'shirt-lifter' stuff while boasting about the size of your 'chopper' like John Inman. Everyone loves gay people here.

1 June 2011 17:58  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0

You probably just wish I was gay, just like alkies always wanting to buy someone a drink in the pub, so they don't have to drink alone and can fool themselves that the insane lifestyle they lead is normal, and everybody else is just like them.

If you object to 'shirt-lifter', will 'pillow-biter' do better?

1 June 2011 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "If you object to 'shirt-lifter', will 'pillow-biter' do better?"

I don't object to either here actually.

Perhaps I am wrong but you're so over the top with the bellicosity that it's comedic and I assume you're trying to be a caricature or something or other. Please don't break the illusion if I'm wrong as I rather like it. I have a vision of you in real life helping old ladies across the road, and having a house full of ginger kittens, and dashing home from work to watch Britain's Got Talent.

But anyway, come on fess up. You're ducking the question. Are you actually gay?

1 June 2011 18:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki

Answer Danjo's question.

Yes or No or do you swing both ways?

1 June 2011 18:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0

It would be difficult for me to watch BGT, as I don't live in Britain, and even if I did, I wouldn't rot my brain watching that crap.

I would help an old lady, more than happy to, if she needed assistance.

I currently care for 11 cats , all full grown, at the mo, so no fun with kittens for a while, although it is that time of year now. I have had as many as 18, but more than that is 'difficult'.

I don't really 'go' to work, I own it. (Nothing to do with cats, I just like them. They ask so fewer questions and command so much more affection than humans).

I'm not ducking the question, I just assumed you weren't really serious. It appears to me to be as daft a question as asking whether you are straight, but just for you (try not to cry) no, I'm not gay. Never really saw the attraction.

I admit I do like reducing Dodo to tears, and his arguments to rubble, using somewhat provocative language, but I can assure you, I'm real.

Try this to ease the pain of knowing I'm not a brown-hatter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

1 June 2011 18:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

You should know better than most not to ask people yes or no questions.

Go to match did we? Yes or no?

Liar.

1 June 2011 18:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, there we go. Anyone who like and respects cats, or indeed any animal, can't be all bad or even that close to it.

1 June 2011 19:08  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
Well I have seven cats.:)

1 June 2011 20:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

len,

Well, there's hope for you yet, then :-)

1 June 2011 21:56  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki

Living abroad, eh? Paying any taxes to Britain?

I do hope they have good 'Care in the Community' where you live.

2 June 2011 00:59  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

The taxes I have paid and continue to pay to the UK, amongst other countries, are nothing short of exhorbitant.

I would be a very silly man to depend on the State to provide me with any medical services I or my family may need.

I reside here, there and indeed everywhere. I'm like the Scarlet Pimpernel; you never can tell where I'll pop up next.

Rest assured: I own absolutely nothing I have not earned without my own two hands and a brain.

Jealous?

You're not a dole-dosser, are you?

2 June 2011 01:20  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki

Just so long as you have a good personal carer to keep an eye on you.

You'd be surprised at what I do to earn a crust.

2 June 2011 01:38  
Blogger s.hill6 said...

This agency place five, count them, five kids a year.

They lost in Parliament. They lost three appeals (to date).

I have no idea who is funding this lunacy, but their costs must be £1 million or so by now.

That could have done a lot of good for a lot of kids in care.

You do not have a human right to perpetuate discrimination against gay people in the face of a decision of the democratically elected government, any more than you have a right to stone adulterers. The only people grateful for your pathetic efforts are lawyers.

2 June 2011 07:34  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

s.hill6,

You are asking someone why they are defending themselves when it would be easier to let the aggressor win.

decision of the democratically elected government

Beware this form of the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. It legitimises that which should be constantly questioned. Democracy is a double-edged sword; we feel so comfortable about it that we never question what it produces. Remember how the Nazi party was elected in a completely legal and democratic manner. You would not defend the Nuremberg laws just because they were a decision of the democratically elected government.

2 June 2011 13:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "I reside here, there and indeed everywhere. I'm like the Scarlet Pimpernel; you never can tell where I'll pop up next."

The Scarlet Pimpernel was very, very camp. At least in the films. Just sayin', like. :)

2 June 2011 18:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0

I thought we'd settled this 'you seem a bit like a queer' thing?

His campness was fake, a disguise to fool people as to his true identity.

After all, who would suspect an effeminate fop of being a swashbuckling hero?

2 June 2011 18:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "I thought we'd settled this 'you seem a bit like a queer' thing?"

I know. I was just teasing. As I have about this all along. I'd say I was just yanking your chain but you know how these things get misunderstood sometimes.

You have corrupted Len, you know. Or at least encouraged to reveal his inner self anyway. I think he's quite taken with your sweary bellicosity.

2 June 2011 18:49  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
You are such a tease.
Still 'chasing me' on the blog.

3 June 2011 08:47  
Anonymous Jon said...

@bluedog - you can't have it both ways (unlike English Viking - ooh err!) either divorcees set a good example (in which case, why not gay people - both acts are forbidden in the Bible) or they don't in which case the Church should stand by its principles and not let them marry - or are you just afraid of opprobrium from the nice middle class people who make up your constituency (or should I say customers)?

Similarly, either marriage is about pro-creation, in which case elderly people should just commit adultery, or it's a loving expression of commitment and an emulation of the love of Christ for his church, in which case, I should be able to marry whomever God intends, and let not man rend us asunder!

As I said, I'm increasingly relaxed either way. As long as CoE PLC pays its taxes and takes it's old men in frocks off the benches of the Lords, you can do what you want!

And Anonymous, I don't recognise the Catholic Church's position on life, since it conspires to do so much to cause so much harm to the innocent by its wilful lies about HIV. When you've sold St Peters and your priceless art collection and thrown the money changers and child molesters from your courts and given your money to the poor and dispossessed, come back and we'll talk. Until then, St Peter's is a white washed tomb.

3 June 2011 12:29  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Jon said.."I don't recognise the Catholic Church's position on life, since it conspires to do so much to cause so much harm to the innocent by its wilful lies about HIV."

The claim by Pope Benedict that condoms cannot stop the AIDS epidemic and can even worsen it is good science and good mathematics. Those who proclaim otherwise may have blood on their hands.


According to Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,

“There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates,” he said in an interview earlier this year.

“This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation,” Green explained, “meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Please see Condom Roulette: The mathematics of Condoms and AIDS

3 June 2011 13:20  
Blogger English Viking said...

Jon,

Even pootahs can't be wrong all the time, and you are correct in the above post.

Divorce is wrong - full-stop. If one studies the scriptures hard enough one will find that re-marriage is permitted when one partner dies. The marriage can also be annulled if the male was under the impression that the female is a virgin, and is not, although this annulment must take place very quickly after the initial marriage and if the man decides to accept the wife, he cannot later reject her. These are the ONLY circumstances that allow for remarriage without sin.

I would say that older people are more likely to be in the position of having lost a spouse, and they are permitted to re-marry, simply for companionship if they wish, there is no requirement that a marriage produce children, although that is one of the reasons for it in younger couples.

Remarriage (after divorce) is adultery, Christ explicitly taught this, and is therefore an ex-communicable sin. Churches which both permit and carry out remarriages of divorcees are sinning.

The RCC is like the rich man (sometimes called Dives), who fared sumptiously everyday, and was clothed in purple, whilst a beggar (Lazarus; not the one Christ raised, a different one) sat at his gate, desiring the crumbs from his table, whilst dogs licked the sores on his legs. Luke 16 19 -31.

Dives went to Hell. So will the RCC. And the sooner the better.

None of my business really, but you would do well to realise that you cannot judge the veracity of Christianity by the behaviour of non-Christians, and RC's are not following Christ, they follow the pope, and Mary, and a load of other mumbo-jumbo that is not in the Bible.

3 June 2011 13:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

"...a loving expression of commitment and an emulation of the love of Christ for his church"

Jesus is the groom and the Church is the bridegroom; marriage is a huge running theme in the Bible. We were made male and female for a reason: because God is masculine and feminine. When we marry, we become one person under God who is capable of production of new life, and therefore we become more like Him. Your view on the Christian attitude to marriage is over simplistic.

...wilful lies about HIV

Such as...

When you've sold St Peters and your priceless art collection...

Do you know why the national trust is a charity and isn't taxed into oblivion, despite its ownership of some of the finest houses in the country? It's because they struggle to keep these sites of culture alive and in good order. Without the asset rich/cash poor national trust, these houses would simply crumble or be replaced by flats. The Vatican spends more on maintaining its cultural assets than it gains from them (let's face it, they're not making much money from them at the moment). This notion that they should sell them (to private collectors where they'll never be open to the public again) is typical of the ill-cultured left. You even said that they were priceless! It's just envy; you wouldn't support the charitable works of the Church even if they sold everything they had. Your distaste for Her is based on something deeper than assets or HIV; they're just superficial reasons.

3 June 2011 13:28  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI,

I wouldn't be surprised if the pushing of condoms on sub-Saharan Africa had similar reasoning to locations of Marie Stopes's first abortion clinics.

3 June 2011 13:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

With respect, Sir, the National Trust is not claiming to be God's representative on Earth, nor did it's founder teach against the evils of hoarding riches.

3 June 2011 14:12  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 June 2011 14:15  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Lakester91 said...
"I wouldn't be surprised if the pushing of condoms on sub-Saharan Africa had similar reasoning to locations of Marie Stopes's first abortion clinics."

Not just the first clinics. IPPF still locates most of its clinics in minoriy areas of the US.

3 June 2011 14:48  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Viking,

You have misunderstood my post. The point is that owning riches is not the same as being rich. The Vatican is responsible for maintaining a huge part of European culture that would otherwise be lost. Would you rather see these paintings preserved by the Vatican, hidden by private collectors or left to rot by our European cultural marx... leaders?

3 June 2011 15:07  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

It is not the business of Christianity, nor its so called representative on Earth's, to compile (often by theft) and protect a multi billion dollar art collection. Particularly when Christ spoke most specifically against the hoarding of riches, and bearing in mind the poor that could be truly helped with such money, thereby spreading the Gospel with deeds and not words.

I believe that these art works would be (are) viewed by Christ as useless trinkets, entranklements that serve no purpose.

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. Mark 10 vv 21,22


Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: Matt 6 vv 19,20

Your 'church' is in flagrant breach of a couple of the most plainest of statements in the Bible, the words of Christ Himself.

3 June 2011 16:46  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Hoarding of treasure for the sake of riches is not the same as keeping treasures so that the world can appreciate them. Vatican paintings weren't stolen in any way. Most of them were painted specifically for the Vatican.

You are either irrationally desperate to find the most minor of complaints about the Church, with the most weak of scriptural arguments, or you are an a-cultural philistine. Perhaps all museums and libraries should shut down. The Vatican Museum is a public service, not a hoard.

I commend and am impressed by your scriptural knowledge, but your scriptural understanding is sorely lacking.

3 June 2011 22:52  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus once said to test the rich young man, and his intentions,and where his true motives lay "sell all you have and give it to the poor."

Perhaps Lakester 91 you should make this suggestion to the Catholic Church paying special attention to their vast storerooms of treasure and the Vatican bank.

Interesting to find out how long you will continue to defend the integrity of this institution(Catholicism)when all the facts stand against it.Do you continue through pride refusing to admit you are wrong?.You prove to me that Catholicism IS the Church ordained by God and I will admit that I have been wrong all along.But please don`t insult my intelligence with the 'rock' thing!.
Can you still tell me Catholicism is the 'bride of Christ',when the Pope has usurped Christ`s position as the Head.?

4 June 2011 08:37  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

If you can't even accept sound scriptural basis for something then how can I persuade you? Even historical arguments don't work, because you have been indoctrinated into this idea that the Church corrupted ideals and invented ideas 100s of years after they were actually adopted. I don't understand why you hate the Church. Someone with an enquiring mind as yourself must surely question the conspiracy theories put before you.

I repeat again. Perhaps even again afterwards if I have to (actually I'm getting a bit bored and might not). There is a difference between hoarding treasures and keeping them for the good of the world. They are not in the Vatican Museum for the sake of wealth but for the sake of culture. Maybe Puritans just can't understand that sort of thing *sigh*. Otherwise, the Church tends to be cash poor-ish. They stay afloat, but they're not going to enter any rich lists any time soon.

4 June 2011 12:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,


Why won't the Vatican open its archives from the '40's, if none of the art it holds is stolen.

A very good question, which you will not know the answer to, because the Vatican repeatedly refuses to answer it, even when asked by the US Congress.

The Vatican - Jew hating, money-laundering, art stealing, Nazi pandering liars.

The lot of them.

4 June 2011 14:04  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

This whole business is a shame and a scandal. How can a modern, liberal state, act to legislate Catholic adoption agencies out of existence?

It is good that they are fighting it. The right place for this is the European Court of Human Rights, which will strike it down (because the EU contains a lot of Catholic countries).

4 June 2011 20:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"How can a modern, liberal state, act to legislate Catholic adoption agencies out of existence?"

It hasn't. It has quite rightly required suppliers of goods and services to avoid unjustly discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It's the same sort of stuff that stops racist employers openly refusing to employ ethnic minorities simply because they're not white and British back seven generations.

If the agencies want to close down rather than adhere to that sort of social justice then it is their decision not the State's. The State is just refusing to grant an exemption on the basis of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

As His Grace suggests, it's a matter of principle. In this case, the principle appears to matter much more than the well-being of the children involved. And it's not as though the Catholic Church has never sought a real world compromise to an alleged problem, is it?

In fact, if it were the Church's good name at stake then the Church would even shelter paedophiles and move them to other areas thereby endangering more children rather than have a potential scandal break out.

5 June 2011 09:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJ0 said... "to avoid unjustly discriminating"

This is "just" discrimination. It is clearly not in the best interests of the child to be adopted by unmarried couples in unstable relationships. The 2009 case of the LGTB leader and adoption campaigner who was convicted of sexual abuse of a 3 month old baby should serve as a warning of the dangers of not discriminating.

5 June 2011 13:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJ0 said... "In fact, if it were the Church's good name at stake then the Church would even shelter paedophiles"

The so called "paedophile scandal" to which you refer was also a homosexual problem, and could have been avoided if seminaries had discriminated more carefully.

5 June 2011 14:07  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ....
"Can you still tell me Catholicism is the 'bride of Christ',when the Pope has usurped Christ`s position as the Head.?"

When has the Church ever claimed to have replaced Christ?

EVIDENCE?

5 June 2011 14:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

That's not what Len said, and you know it.

Your filthy 'church' has not replaced Christ, your filthy papa claims to have done so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7TTQilMRgI

Oooh, dirty, so, so dirty.

5 June 2011 19:11  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS Seig Heil.

Go to the match, did we?

5 June 2011 19:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hidey anonymous person ashamed to give a name: "The so called "paedophile scandal" to which you refer was also a homosexual problem, and could have been avoided if seminaries had discriminated more carefully."

Not exclusively it wasn't. And of course, it involved a wider scope of child abuse as well.

5 June 2011 19:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The same or perhaps another (who knows?) hidey person: "This is "just" discrimination."

Luckily, more intelligent people don't infer the general case solely from the very specific.

5 June 2011 19:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

However, studies show that homosexuales (including homosexual) priests are 50 to 100 times more likely to to molest a child than heterosexuales.

5 June 2011 19:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Luckily, more intelligent people don't infer the general case solely from the very specific."

In this case the crime was not specific to one man but involved a very large group of homosexual pedophiles.

5 June 2011 20:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anonymous (Same one, different one, same embarrassment or shyness?), perhaps we should keep the Catholic Church away from children altogether given the instances of child abuse, both sexual and not, in it if we are to generalise. Better safe than sorry huh?

5 June 2011 21:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...the accompanying refusal to even discuss the possibility of a link between an active homosexual lifestyle and child sexual abuse, is a grave disservice not only to the victims, but to society at large. Obviously, a proven link between homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation would badly damage the carefully crafted public relations image of the "gay rights" movement. Therefore, instead of calmly and rationally discussing the issues, homosexual rights leaders subscribe to the axiom "the best defense is a good [and loud] offense." They remain in a permanent attack mode.

Source http://www.renewamerica.com/

5 June 2011 22:35  
Anonymous Jon said...

English Viking, I thank you. In these circumstances, I like to ask what Jesus would have done - and to think about the Church's mission to bring the word of God to as many people as possible before Jesus comes back.

Art collections which remain unseen by anyone but curators in the Vatican actively divert church resources from the Church's core mission, and I think Jesus would have righteously denounced them. They aren't wealth - they are preventing the realisation of any kind of wealth that Christ would value. Lakester who linked the Church to the National Trust exhibits the mentality of the Church as some kind of museum perfectly. The Church is its people, not the sum of its artefacts and buildings, however fairly or unfairly collected. You don't see Christian Aid or Cafod accumulating Rembrandts - they would rightly be pilloried for doing so. If you believe Jesus' message, the Church's work ought to be similarly urgent. And I don't single out the RCC (even though it's wealth is mindblowing and an insult to its position) the CoE acts like a wealth manager too sometimes.

As to the anonymous poster who links homosexuality to child molestation, your stats, your views and any evidence you're citing has been comprehensively superceded by any number of studies over the last 40 years which I simply can't be bothered to link to. God loves you, I think you're a tit.

6 June 2011 11:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If homosexuality were good for one, then it would be good for everyone. Fortunately that is not the case, and therefore in general terms, all homosexuals owe their existence to heterosexuals. I wish homosexuals would stop calling themseves "gay". I can be happy and carefree; indulge in acts of "gaiety" and can therefore be gay, but i'm not a homosexual in a million of years.Can we please have our back, its just a euphemism for homosexual.

6 June 2011 12:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jon said..."As to the anonymous poster who links homosexuality to child molestation, your stats, your views and any evidence you're citing has been comprehensively superceded by any number of studies"

Please cite just one.


An epidemiological study on the life span of gay men concluded that sexually active gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. Other studies show the average practicing homosexual in the USA has a life expectancy of 41, if he does not get AIDS and 39 if he does. And you believe that children should be exposed to such a lifestyle?

6 June 2011 13:29  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I'm not quite certain how we came to paedophilia and homosexuals, but I do feel it necessary to point out that in general, you're not talking about paedophiles, but ephebophiles. There're only a tiny proportion of perverts who go after pre-pubescents. The scandal in the Church (which for the billionth time I point out was of cover-up, as the prevalence was lower than average) was nigh on solely of ephebophilia. Therefore the charge that it disproportionately homosexual in nature is fair.

6 June 2011 13:45  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Jon said..."You don't see Christian Aid or Cafod accumulating Rembrandts"
Christian AID, like OXFAM and Amnesty is just one more abortion promoting NGO. It cannot, therefore, be called Christian.

Nor has CAFOD followed Church teaching on the use of condoms -which, as the Pope correctly pointed out, are responsible for furthering the spread of the AIDS epidemic by increasing promiscuity.

6 June 2011 13:52  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Jon said..." If you believe Jesus' message, the Church's work ought to be similarly urgent."

That is why institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church and supported by the Catholic Church are the largest care providers of HIV and AIDS in the world.

6 June 2011 14:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Address correction: epidemiological study

6 June 2011 18:50  
Anonymous Jon said...

Anonymous 1 - your post makes absolutely no sense. It's not even logically coherent.

Anonymous 2 (I'm assuming?) - The Corporate Resource Council definitely sounds like they're objective monitors of gay people's behaviour! But let's say I just googled it - this one would pop up:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

What's more, the study cited by your "study" talk about instance of AIDS related deaths decreasing - so whilst rates of HIV infection amongst gay men were high before the disease was identified, anti-retroviral drugs have extended life expectancy for those newly diagnosed to be pretty much the same as people with other chronic illnesses, such as diabetes.

By your logic, adoption agencies should screen potential adoptees for diabetes or, say, family history of cancer to avoid the child being exposed to a parent dying early.

But that's not really what you object to, is it? You object to a kid growing up with gay dads. So stop trying to hide your prejudice behind faux academic arguments, you bigot.

7 June 2011 12:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jon said But that's not really what you object to, is it? You object to a kid growing up with gay dads. So stop trying to hide your prejudice behind faux academic arguments, you bigot.

Independent of their lifespan, alcoholics, drug addicts, satanists, criminals, polygamists, unmarried couples, the insane, people with serios or terminal illnesses and yes, homosexuals are not the best candidates to adopt children. Society has every right to discriminate in the interests of the child. If it is bigotry to believe this, then, yes, I am a bigot.

Anonymous 2

7 June 2011 14:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to a recent study by US Center for Disease control, the aids rate among gay men is 5000% higher than average. Rates for diseases such as anal cancer are similarly high. The prevalence of sex-related diseases among homosexuals is clear evidence of a disordered lifestyle. It is not in the interests of adopted children to be exposed to such a lifestyle.

7 June 2011 14:43  
Blogger Peter said...

Your Grace

I have just been writing about this topic (see: http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/09/academic-writing-leeds-catholic-care.html) and your blog came up searching for comments about it.

It is interesting how you, like many others, seem hoodwinked by the nature of much contemporary faith based welfare. The charity you write about:

1) receives 94% of its income from the taxpayer in one way or another – it is certainly NOT heavily reliant on donations, which make up only 2.6% of its income.
2) Long before this debacle it had an equal opportunities policy opening its services and employment open to anyone, regardless of sexuality – even a faith-based charity, heavily reliant on government money need not do this, Prospects Care (a Christian learning disabilities charity) legally only allows practicing Christians to work for the organisation.
3) The charity has stated it is happy to use same-sex couples as foster carers.
4) The bulk of the cost of the adoptions is paid for by the professional fee the charity requests from local authorities (and it only adopts five or so children a year – it is hardly (to use your words) a ‘Leeds-based adoption charity’ – adoption is almost a ‘sideline’).
5) Nowhere is there any talk of the charity being forced to make use of same-sex couples – it just has to offer its services.

I think what his Grace should be promoting is for many faith-based organisations to actually put their money where their mouth is and ‘be’ something different: not reliant on taxpayer income and an often non-believing front line staff team. Of course if this was the case, many Christian charities would substantially have to reduce the work they do – unless Christians were willing to fund the work themselves and fill the vacancies doing the front line work. But how many of the pew filling faithful would want to work for minimum wage – ‘better pay someone else to do our charity by proxy, with someone else’s money’ seems to be the implication of much custom and practice by the ‘faithful’ when it comes to Christian charities.

Please, please look at the FACTS rather than writing reactionary little diatribes about a subject you appear to be woefully ignorant. Read the ruling, before jumping to emotive and inaccurate conclusions: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/catholic-care-judgment-26042011.pdf

It is time for Christians to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to such cases. But as you know, Leeds Catholic Care, like many faith based organisations, would die a death without the taxpayer to meet the cost and the unbeliever to do the dirty work!

My own advice, as someone who has worked for three faith-based organisation and is just coming to the end of a PhD where I have researched faith-based charities, is go and work for one of these organisations – don’t read the bumph, don’t listen to the words of bishops and trustees who’ve usually not done a day’s frontline, hands on work in such an organisation. See firsthand, and perhaps it might just shock you and others out of this make-believe world that faith based orgs, heavily reliant on the taxpayer ‘do’ anything different to other voluntary organisations doing similar work.

As someone who has worked in many such faith based orgs, I think the only way forward, to maintain the integrity and the prophetic and ‘evangelical’ nature of Christian charity is to go it alone – free from state funding and only employing Christian staff. Then Catholic Care could adopt to whom it likes. But such a change of direction would be costly and it seems many Christians are more content to bleat on about ‘unfairness’. Whereas I think it is unfair to think you can call the tune, when you are not the one paying the piper...

Regards:


P.

16 September 2011 12:38  
Blogger Peter said...

Anon said: “According to a recent study by US Center for Disease control, the aids rate among gay men is 5000% higher than average. Rates for diseases such as anal cancer are similarly high. The prevalence of sex-related diseases among homosexuals is clear evidence of a disordered lifestyle. It is not in the interests of adopted children to be exposed to such a lifestyle.”
Care to give any links to these ‘statistics’?

You might find this interesting reading: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece or this http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/08/uk-riots-where-are-fathers-we-must.html or http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-on-anglicanmainstream-and-evidence.html
It we’re going off statistics – a liberal, secular, democratic society is healthier, has a far, far lower rate of divorce, teen pregnancy, violent crime, lone parenting etc. and often a far higher incidence of children being raised by two parents! So please don’t bore us with nasty statistics of dubious origin. It seems, if the USA is anything to go off, the more ‘Christian’ a society, the higher its incidences of social problems!

Regards:

P.

16 September 2011 12:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older