Equality complaint threatens future of UK's last Catholic adoption agency

[Santi2]

There are two things that I’m not sure about: whether we’re still talking about the UK or US, and whether what you just said is referring to Catholic schools our public schools. If it’s referring to public schools, that’s a whole different ballgame. Despite commonly held belief, you don’t get to individually decide on what gets taught in schools . Your say comes when you vote for your school board, judges, and other people who make these decisions. Of the person you wanted didn’t get elected, that’s too bad - the majority had spoken. That’s our process here in the US at least. The Church had the freedom to have its own school if it doesn’t like ones run by the government, and you have the freedom to send your children there.

I am from the UK and have been discussing matters as it affects us over here in relation to the OP. We have a different system to your schools. Governing bodies in our schools have no legal right to contest parental authority to withdraw their children from lessons which are deemed improper or in conflict with beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. However, there are attempts to undermine parental authority under proposed changes to legislation on marriage.

I’m offended by your use of “families” in quotes. Whether or not you like it, there are gay couples with children in houses who pay taxes in neighborhoods just like yours, and you don’t get to decide whether they fit the definition of a family. I don’t go around saying the Catholic “religion” so I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make such callous remarks either

You are in a Catholic forum and plenty of what is discussed here will offend you. So, you’ll have to have a broad back as I am not the only Catholic member who holds that same-sex union is not, and will never be, on equal footing with heterosexual marriages. Regardless of what contemporary law dictates. For all the reasons that various posters with same view have already stated in regard thereto. It does not bother me a jot if you put religion in quotes.

 

[peduzzi89]

I am from the UK and have been discussing matters as it affects us over here in relation to the OP. We have a different system to your schools. Governing bodies in our schools have no legal right to contest parental authority to withdraw their children from lessons which are deemed improper or in conflict with beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. However, there are attempts to undermine parental authority under proposed changes to legislation on marriage.

I understand that and most of what I don’t agree with on here doesn’t personally offend me. I find that putting marriage in quotes because you don’t agree that it should exist is much different from putting family in quotes, as if certain families that do in fact exist don’t actually. It just seemed like more of a personal attack rather than a difference of opinion, the latter of which I’m more than prepared to deal with. To me, it’s as if you have a sterile Protestant couple who is divorced and remarried and has adopted children, and you referred to them as a “family”. But I understand that you weren’t being that purposefully mean and will try not to be so sensitive.

 

[kelvinf]

I understand that and most of what I don’t agree with on here doesn’t personally offend me. I find that putting marriage in quotes because you don’t agree that it should exist is much different from putting family in quotes, as if certain families that do in fact exist don’t actually. It just seemed like more of a personal attack rather than a difference of opinion, the latter of which I’m more than prepared to deal with. To me, it’s as if you have a sterile Protestant couple who is divorced and remarried and has adopted children, and you referred to them as a “family”. But I understand that you weren’t being that purposefully mean and will try not to be so sensitive.

CCC 2207: The family is the original cell of social life.** It is the natural society in which husband** and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life.

Without a husband and wife, a family cannot exist.

 

[Santi2]

To me, it’s as if you have a sterile Protestant couple who is divorced and remarried and has adopted children, and you referred to them as a “family”.

Peduzzi, the above is a family on the basis that it comprise of a mother, father and a child (who was conceived by a woman with the help of a man). We do not see that in same sex relationships. There is currently an ongoing thread in World News on this particular issue relating to Elton John and David Furnish. You and I can stand on our heads until the cows come home but, nothing will alter the biological fact that a man and a man or, a woman and woman are not a mother and a father. It’s simply a case where the saying: “a rose by any other name smells just as sweet” does not apply.

Case in point, on Tuesday, the UK Parliament will debate current proposed laws to redefine marriage. The Marriage Same Sex Couples Bill which under Schedule 3 – Interpretation Part 2 – Section 5(2) includes:-
The following expressions have the meanings:-
(*a) “husband” includes a man who is married to another man;
(b) “wife” includes a woman who is married to another woman;
(c) “widower” includes a man whose marriage to another man ended with the other man’s death;
(d) “widow” includes a woman whose marriage to another woman ended with the other woman’s death; *

Plain madness.

 

[peduzzi89]

CCC 2207: The family is the original cell of social life.** It is the natural society in which husband** and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life.

Without a husband and wife, a family cannot exist.

Well for the 75% of the country that isn’t Catholic, that’s not the only rule about whether or not you can call yourself a family. A nurse relative of mine just took care a drug-addicted mother who is adopting her twins out to two sisters because she can’t take care of them herself. If you feel comfortable telling them they’re not a family, then there’s no getting through to you.

 

[kelvinf]

Peduzzi, the above is a family on the basis that it comprise of a mother, father and a child (who was conceived by a woman with the help of a man). We do not see that in same sex relationships. There is currently an ongoing thread in World News on this particular issue relating to Elton John and David Furnish. You and I can stand on our heads until the cows come home but, nothing will alter the biological fact that a man and a man or, a woman and woman are not a mother and a father. It’s simply a case where the saying: “a rose by any other name smells just as sweet” does not apply.

Case in point, on Tuesday, the UK Parliament will debate current proposed laws to redefine marriage. The Marriage Same Sex Couples Bill which under Schedule 3 – Interpretation Part 2 – Section 5(2) includes:-
The following expressions have the meanings:-
(*a) “husband” includes a man who is married to another man;
(b) “wife” includes a woman who is married to another woman;
(c) “widower” includes a man whose marriage to another man ended with the other man’s death;
(d) “widow” includes a woman whose marriage to another woman ended with the other woman’s death; *

Plain madness.

The French tried to go with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” but finally realised how stupid it was and dropped it.

 

[kelvinf]

Well for the 75% of the country that isn’t Catholic, that’s not the only rule about whether or not you can call yourself a family. A nurse relative of mine just took care a drug-addicted mother who is adopting her twins out to two sisters because she can’t take care of them herself. If you feel comfortable telling them they’re not a family, then there’s no getting through to you.

You are free to call people living under the same roof as family. But don’t expect us to call 2 gays with a child family because they are not.

 

[peduzzi89]

Peduzzi, the above is a family on the basis that it comprise of a mother, father and a child (who was conceived by a woman with the help of a man). We do not see that in same sex relationships. There is currently an ongoing thread in World News on this particular issue relating to Elton John and David Furnish. You and I can stand on our heads until the cows come home but, nothing will alter the biological fact that a man and a man or, a woman and woman are not a mother and a father. It’s simply a case where the saying: “a rose by any other name smells just as sweet” does not apply.

Case in point, on Tuesday, the UK Parliament will debate current proposed laws to redefine marriage. The Marriage Same Sex Couples Bill which under Schedule 3 – Interpretation Part 2 – Section 5(2) includes:-
The following expressions have the meanings:-
(*a) “husband” includes a man who is married to another man;
(b) “wife” includes a woman who is married to another woman;
(c) “widower” includes a man whose marriage to another man ended with the other man’s death;
(d) “widow” includes a woman whose marriage to another woman ended with the other woman’s death; *

Plain madness.

That’s only one case. There are kids raised by single parents, by grandmothers, by two sisters, even by two men or two women who are just friends but gave a good home to a child in need. Some of the people raising those children could be doing things that are just as gravely sinful as homosexuality, according to the Church. But that doesn’t mean they can’t call themselves a family. Sure, you could say that those children were at some point the product of a man and a woman coming together, but then again, so are the children adopted by same-sex couples. Much of the practical world has recognized that there are more important qualities to being parents than genitalia. Most thinking people would rather see a child be raised by two gay men or women who are loving, caring parents than its biological parents who are abusive, use drugs, or are otherwise horrible parents. On the other hand, the Catholic Church, typically enough, forces its members to stay on what they believe is the right side of the issue even if the practical ramifications of doing so are far worse.

As for them discussing same-sex marriage, good. They should. I don’t know about the UK, but I know in the US there is no solid legal basis for prohibiting same-sex couples to marry because all the bases one can come up with are based on religion and our constitution prohibits that. Religious people try to say that their reasoning is based on things other than religion, but all the arguments I have heard so far are fallacious. In order to legally prohibit something (here at least) it needs to threaten to take away the rights of someone else, and no one has yet to prove that it does. (As I noted in an earlier post, our government does not find that a child has the legal right to be raised by its mother and father, otherwise it would never approve of situations where this doesn’t happen).

 

[peduzzi89]

You are free to call people living under the same roof as family. But don’t expect us to call 2 gays with a child family because they are not.

But you’d call the two sisters raising children a family? Or would you go up to the children and say, “sorry your mother was a drug addict, but you’re not a family anymore.” The Catechism calls for gay people to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. The statement you made above does none of those things. You’re actually victimizing children because of what you believe to be the sin of their parents. It’s outrageous.

 

[Santi2]

The French tried to go with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” but finally realised how stupid it was and dropped it.

Same here. But, government decided to drag SSM into rather than drag us out of. I suspect, however, that government will once again attempt to go the route of “Partners”, which means we get dragged into theirs. “Marriage”, and “husband and wife” will be abolished and everyone will be in partnerships. Parliamentarians and silly walks.

 

[Santi2]

That’s only one case. There are kids raised by single parents, by grandmothers, by two sisters, even by two men or two women who are just friends but gave a good home to a child in need. Some of the people raising those children could be doing things that are just as gravely sinful as homosexuality, according to the Church. But that doesn’t mean they can’t call themselves a family.

Like single parents, grandmothers, two sisters (siblings, aunts or cousins) are blood kin. With the exception of the first, the rest are considered extended family. Two men and two women who are just friends (not a relationship) and possess legal guardianship are not normally treated as family but in loco parentis.

Sure, you could say that those children were at some point the product of a man and a woman coming together, but then again, so are the children adopted by same-sex couples. Much of the practical world has recognized that there are more important qualities to being parents than genitalia. Most thinking people would rather see a child be raised by two gay men or women who are loving, caring parents than its biological parents who are abusive, use drugs, or are otherwise horrible parents. On the other hand, the Catholic Church, typically enough, forces its members to stay on what they believe is the right side of the issue even if the practical ramifications of doing so are far worse.

You’ve exactly stated where we differ and your statement: “even if the practical ramifications of doing so are far worse” highlights that difference because it is dependent on which side of the fence one stands on. You must be careful with that statement though as it has a tendency to veer away from your previous position that Catholic adoption agencies ought to enjoy the religious privilege to operate without compromising their beliefs on traditional marriage.

As for them discussing same-sex marriage, good. They should. I don’t know about the UK, but I know in the US there is no solid legal basis for prohibiting same-sex couples to marry because all the bases one can come up with are based on religion and our constitution prohibits that. Religious people try to say that their reasoning is based on things other than religion, but all the arguments I have heard so far are fallacious. In order to legally prohibit something (here at least) it needs to threaten to take away the rights of someone else, and no one has yet to prove that it does. (As I noted in an earlier post, our government does not find that a child has the legal right to be raised by its mother and father, otherwise it would never approve of situations where this doesn’t happen).

We do not have a separation of Church and state like America because we have an established Church (Church of England) and have sitting Ecclesiastical/Spiritual Law Lords in Parliament. Our laws on marriage are morally and legally discerned from the Judeo-Christian faith which makes religious arguments against same sex marriage non-fallacious. The Book of Common Prayer is an Act of Parliament and states: “For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”

 

[peduzzi89]

Like single parents, grandmothers, two sisters (siblings, aunts or cousins) are blood kin. With the exception of the first, the rest are considered extended family. Two men and two women who are just friends (not a relationship) and possess legal guardianship are not normally treated as family but in loco parentis.

I guess this is just a difference of opinion about what can be called a family, which is fine. Having been a member of several social groups of people that are typically excluded, I prefer to be particularly INclusive about whom I refer to as my family. But it’s your right to disagree.

You’ve exactly stated where we differ and your statement: “even if the practical ramifications of doing so are far worse” highlights that difference because it is dependent on which side of the fence one stands on. You must be careful with that statement though as it has a tendency to veer away from your previous position that Catholic adoption agencies ought to enjoy the religious privilege to operate without compromising their beliefs on traditional marriage.

This is just a difference of opinion I suppose as well - I think drug addicted parents are worse, the Church thinks gay parents are worse. I guess I come from a very personal standpoint because I know two men who have four children, all from the same crack-addict mother. They were born drug-addicted, and nobody else would adopt them because they have special needs. I’m just glad that adoption agency wasn’t a Catholic one because I think these two men saved their lives. Now that being said, I do still believe that a Catholic agency has a right to choose, because I know they’re at least not going to put children in any bad homes once they’ve already been put up for adoption.

We do not have a separation of Church and state like America because we have an established Church (Church of England) and have sitting Ecclesiastical/Spiritual Law Lords in Parliament. Our laws on marriage are morally and legally discerned from the Judeo-Christian faith which makes religious arguments against same sex marriage non-fallacious. The Book of Common Prayer is an Act of Parliament and states: “For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.”

That’s actually very interesting to me, as that is quite a noteworthy difference from our system. I would imagine that makes for a much more difficult legal battle on the side of same-sex marriage supporters. I guess we’re on the right sides of the ocean then I’m curious as to how that sits with the Catholic Church, because it seems to me that that has a lot of potential for “we like it when they agree with us, and we don’t when they don’t”

 

[Santi2]

This is just a difference of opinion I suppose as well - I think drug addicted parents are worse, the Church thinks gay parents are worse. I guess I come from a very personal standpoint because I know two men who have four children, all from the same crack-addict mother. They were born drug-addicted, and nobody else would adopt them because they have special needs. I’m just glad that adoption agency wasn’t a Catholic one because I think these two men saved their lives. Now that being said, I do still believe that a Catholic agency has a right to choose, because I know they’re at least not going to put children in any bad homes once they’ve already been put up for adoption.

The Catholic Church does not condemn a chaste homosexual parent, Peduzzi. It is when that homosexual parent partners with another homosexual that the Church will speak out. And, She will do so in the same way that She will draw the attention of the drug-addicted parents towards a lifestyle which is inherently harmful to a child. What the Catholic Church teaches is the character one must adopt for the welfare of the child. So, that applies to all Catholic parents.

The proposed changes to our laws on marriage actually support the Catholic position against the right of homosexual couples to adopt. The proposed law states that sexual unfaithfulness is ground for divorce. Same sex activity committed by a homosexual or a heterosexual is deemed unreasonable behaviour. So, where same sex activity = unreasonable behaviour, the Scottish Catholic agency may just have a legal argument for their adoption policy, in the manner that one would not expect a Catholic adoption agency to place children with a married couple who suffer from drug addiction.

One important note I must draw to your attention, together with the religious privilege for religious institutions to govern in accordance with its doctrine on marriage, the law on civil partnership in this country specifically states that civil partnerships is not equal to marriage. That is what the Catholic agency has relied upon with regards to their adoption policy, which is actually supported by current kerfuffle in Parliament.

That’s actually very interesting to me, as that is quite a noteworthy difference from our system. I would imagine that makes for a much more difficult legal battle on the side of same-sex marriage supporters. I guess we’re on the right sides of the ocean then I’m curious as to how that sits with the Catholic Church, because it seems to me that that has a lot of potential for "we like it when they agree with us, and we don’t when they don’t

Of course, it has. The Church of England ordains women to the priesthood and the Catholic Church does not. But, that does not have any bearing on how the Catholic Church governs Herself and the CofE has no authority to impose that the Catholic Church follow suit and the relationship between the two. One thing that might be of interest to you is that the conflict which brought about the establishment of the Church of England was on account of a petition to change the Catholic position on marriage. History repeats itself.

 

[kelvinf]

But you’d call the two sisters raising children a family? Or would you go up to the children and say, “sorry your mother was a drug addict, but you’re not a family anymore.” The Catechism calls for gay people to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. The statement you made above does none of those things. You’re actually victimizing children because of what you believe to be the sin of their parents. It’s outrageous.

You seem to be very sensitive. Since when is disagreeing with someone disrespect?

There are gays who are victimising children.

FYI, in the country where I live, 2 sisters cannot adopt a child! So the example you gave does not hold any ground because 2 people who aren’t married cannot adopt a child!

Children come about as a result of the union between a man and a woman and they are best raised by a man and a woman. God made it that way. This is what we believe and it will never change.

 

[Santi2]

I guess we’re on the right sides of the ocean then

You strike me as one who bears tremendous compassion for others, Peduzzi. Study our faith i.e. why we believe what we believe and feel free to come home any time. The door is always open.

 

[latin_rite]

It makes me sad to think of all the thousands if not millions of non europeans who died in two wars keeping that place free. Men who lives could have been better served in their own lands.

 

[peduzzi89]

You seem to be very sensitive. Since when is disagreeing with someone disrespect?

There are gays who are victimising children.

FYI, in the country where I live, 2 sisters cannot adopt a child! So the example you gave does not hold any ground because 2 people who aren’t married cannot adopt a child!

Children come about as a result of the union between a man and a woman and they are best raised by a man and a woman. God made it that way. This is what we believe and it will never change.

I really am not sensitive about the fact that we disagree and don’t find that disrespectful. I just think that telling someone who thinks of themselves as a family that they’re not a real family does not show respect, compassion, and sensitivity, especially to the children involved. You may believe that gay couples are victimizing children, which is fine, but that viewpoint can never do anything to prevent them from doing so, and so even with your viewpoint, it only makes matters worse for those children to take away the benefits that their parents would get and therefore afford to them if they were married.

I do apologize as I keep forgetting that the OP had to do with a British law and that our laws in the US are noticeably different.

Nota bene - referring to gay people as “gays” or “the gays” is offensive to them and their allies and so there’s no need to use them when there’s a number of non-offensive terms you can use.

 

[TarkanAttila]

You strike me as one who bears tremendous compassion for others, Peduzzi. Study our faith i.e. why we believe what we believe and feel free to come home any time. The door is always open.

If I had a dollar for every time I should have approached someone with such compassion, but didn’t, I would be a multi-thousandaire.

And I would be a millionaire if I let those who I agree with speak for me.Such as Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, a professor at Franciscan University. If I could borrow y’all’s ears for an hour…

She takes some time to talk about what marriage is and what gay marriage would entail for our understanding of who we are.

 

[kelvinf]

Nota bene - referring to gay people as “gays” or “the gays” is offensive to them and their allies and so there’s no need to use them when there’s a number of non-offensive terms you can use.

I have never ever heard that. So I decided to check on Wikipedia:

The label “gay” was originally used purely as an adjective (“he is a gay man” or “he is gay”). The term has been in use as a noun with the meaning “homosexual man” since the 1970s, as in “gays are opposed to that policy.” Although some dislike this usage, it is common, such as in the case of “LGBT” (“lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender”), and particularly in the names of various organizations such as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and Children Of Lesbians And Gays Everywhere (COLAGE). It is sometimes used as a singular noun, as in “he is a gay”, such as in its use to comic effect by the Little Britain character Dafydd Thomas.

So according to you, is it also offensive when Obama uses the word “gays”?

“My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,”

Or is it only then offensive when a Catholic uses the term?

Again, for me, this is the first time I am hearing that. If the term were offensive, which does not seem to be the case as per my homework, I wouldn’t use it.

This now is kind of reminiscent of Catholics being accused of homophobia for renouncing gay marriage.

 

[Crescentinus]

It seems to me that anti-Catholicism is the most acceptable prejudice in Britain as well. The ones leading the prejudice are the homosexualists.