Controversy surrounds a piece of legislation to be brought before theWestminster parliament, namely the anti-discrimination regulations which are well-intentioned but causing disquiet - not without reason.The controversy has centred on the provision of adoption services to those in same-sex civil partnerships who have won the right to have their relationship legally recognised. They will benefit from the fiscal and social privileges until now reserved only to married couples.
Many people opposed that legislation, and pointed out that it is in itself discriminatory in that it doesn't extend such benefits to others (including relatives) who have undertaken to share their lives to the extent of caring for one another, sharing a common household and taking responsibility for one another in times of financial need or sickness.
More recently, same-sex couples have further sought and, under recent legislation, have been given the right to adopt children as a couple.
However, in cases of fostering or adoption the good of the child must be paramount. Legislation that would force agencies to reverse that paramountcy would, in a sense, be discriminating against the good of the children in favour of the desire of couples wishing to adopt.
Such legislation would therefore be defective in its effect, unless it were to recognise adoption agencies were not only entitled to but had the responsibility of always ensuring that the needs of disadvantaged children were not further compromised by their being placed in circumstances the agency prudently judged to be inappropriate.
Our Catholic agencies, upholding as they do the dignity of the natural family, namely the union of a man and woman in a permanent relationship open to life, are not disposed to placing children for fostering and adoption with those in civil partnerships. Such a position does not imply, and should not be taken to imply, that our agencies do not accept the genuine desire of such couples to benefit a child, nor indeed to suggest that they are incapable of, or would be unloving in, providing a home.
However, it is our firmly held conviction that children being placed for adoption, and therefore already in a vulnerable position, are best cared for in a family unit of a man and a woman united in a permanent relationship. This stability and familiarity with loving male and female role models serves the best long-term interests of the child.
But there is a fundamental concern on the part of the church - our agencies must act in a way that is consistent with their own ethos and statutes informed by Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage. They must consider the implications of a Catholic agency appearing to condone an arrangement which is not in accord with the church's teaching. This is a serious matter, a matter of honesty and integrity. If the law were to require such agencies to actcontrary to their prudently held convictions, in effect threatening them with closure if they did not follow what might be termed a state-imposed morality, such legislation would in itself be discriminatory.
It would discriminate against a section of the community which maintains a position based upon a coherent faith-inspired morality which, until comparatively recent years, was held by the vast majority of the people of our country, and is still held by the many who are not formally members of the Catholic church.
It also seems to me there has been in some quarters a deliberate attempt to confuse the issues with the intention of benefiting the electoral chances of one or other party. This has resulted in further confusion on a matter which, because of its seriousness, should not be resolved on ideological, partisan or party political grounds.
The irony of this whole situation is that very, very few children, particularly if we take the wishes of their birth parents into account, are likely to be placed with same-sex couples. Indeed, the actual placing of children presently in need of fostering or adoption is likely to be impeded if the authorities act against Catholic agencies by enforcing their closure. There are plenty of agencies ready to take a different stand from those of the Catholic church. Same-sex couples who are allowed now under the law to adopt can be assisted by such agencies.
What remains is a debate on principle and it has resulted in a confrontation between, on the one hand, the Catholic church with those who support it (including the most senior figures in the Church of England and the Muslim Council) and, on the other, the Westminster government.Westminster should think carefully about the consequences of such unnecessary confrontation.
The gay adoption issue is of course just the tip of the iceberg. A fundamental point is at stake.
A distinction must surely be made between according rights to individuals and groups within society, and the imposing of duties on others to service those rights in all circumstances - irrespective of reasonable conscientious grounds for not so doing.
It's worth recalling that, strictly speaking, no person and no couple (whatever their sexuality or marital status) has the "right" to a child. A child is a gift, not a good or a commodity to be dispensed in a consumerist fashion . The church has, historically, fulfilled the role of helping society to discern what is right and wrong, of encouraging just laws and respect for them. It would surely be a loss to the whole of society if that role were to be outlawed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce