Leeds adoption agency pursues appeal against SORs

Briefing. The Leeds agency is now the only English one pursuing this route.

From The Tablet: A CATHOLIC adoption agency in Leeds has decided to pursue its case with the Charity Tribunal next week. Catholic Care says it has been forced by the Charity Commission to

return to the tribunal, despite an initial hearing that found in its favour.

“We are doing this as a matter of principle, in spite of the high cost,” said Mark Wiggin, director of Catholic Care. The charity is resisting legislation obliging it to consider homosexual couples as adoptive parents.

Read More...

Summary only...

Westminster Catholic Children's Society to test SORs

Action: prayers, please, to sustain their resolve.

From CFNews: The Westminster Catholic Children's Society is defying rules compelling adoption organisations to place children with homosexual couples. New Labour's war on common sense has at last come up against a determined opponent. A Catholic adoption society is defying rules compelling such bodies to place children with homosexual couples. It believes it can do this within the law - a belief almost certain to be tested in the courts, given the zeal of homosexual rights organisations. But why should such battles be necessary? These rules, like so many others, were forced on this country by the EU Commission - in this case, the Employment Framework Directive of 2000. But as so often, Britain went further than Brussels required. Other EU countries did not extend the rules to cover adoption agencies. Clearly, the legislation was brought in to please the radical lobbies to which New Labour owes so much.

In the same way, the Government passed its anti-hunting laws to satisfy its class-warrior wing, giving little thought to the impossibility of enforcing such legislation. It cared more about placating its supporters than it did about the practical effects of its actions. And so it brought Parliament and the law into disrepute. Can a law obliging nuns and priests to go against their deepest beliefs be upheld in the courts? Is it any business of the law to intervene in matters of conscience?

Charities are entitled to abide by their own precepts, just as much as homosexuals are entitled to have private lives free from harassment. It is not as if the churches either have or seek a monopoly of adoption services. Until now, the only result of this new law has been to drive dedicated religious organisations out of the adoption system. The fate of so many children, who above all need good homes, is too important to be treated in this frivolous, dogma-driven way. The Westminster Catholic Children's Society deserves the support of all genuinely tolerant people for taking a serious issue seriously. [Daily Mail]

Read More...

Summary only...

Homosexual couples and parenting

Briefing. If anyone was wondering who is the 'victim' when gay marriage is legalised and Catholic adoption agencies closed down, here is the answer.

From CFNews: Tom McFeely writes in the National Catholic Register: 'Dawn Stefanowicz says she knows from personal experience that what the American College of Pediatricians recommends is true. She is a Canadian woman who grew up in a homosexual household. She says Americans wouldn't support same-sex 'marriage' if they understood how it can harm children.

Stefanowicz, author of the book Out From Under: the Impact of Homosexual Parenting, rejects the claim of homosexual activists that same-sex households are just as healthy for kids as heterosexual homes.

'That hasn't been my experience or the experience of people who have contacted me who have been raised in a similar situation,' said Stefanowicz. 'We've all faced negative challenges in this kind of household.'

Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said the larger body of evidence supports this.

'My response would be to look at every major psychological and child-welfare national organization,' he said, 'who have all come out and said that children raised with same-sex parents have no less development than children who were raised in a heterosexual relationship.'

The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,' the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the 'Position Statements' section of its website, acpeds.org.

'Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,' it says. 'This position is rooted in the best available science.'

The American College of Pediatricians' position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, a Rhode Island general pediatrician who is a board member of the American College of Pediatricians, said Luna is correct in saying that major medical groups have expressed support for homosexual parenting. But she said that they have done so despite the fact that scientific research has not established that such families are as healthy for kids as married heterosexual families.

Faulty Comparisons

Cretella said that when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex parenting in 2002, it acted on the recommendation of a small committee that she says had an agenda.

The academy endorsed homosexual parents over the specific objections of some committee members who noted the flaws in the research studies that found same-sex parenting to be as healthy as heterosexual parenting, she said.

A key methodological flaw in those studies is that they compared the well-being of children in homosexual households to those raised in difficult circumstances such as single-parent households that resulted from divorce, Cretella said.

None of the studies compared children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage.

Said Cretella, 'Because if you do that, and we have decades of studies that have compared children in a traditional home with children of single mothers, children of single fathers, adoptive children, stepfamilies, children raised by a mother and grandmother, and across the board socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically children reared physically by their two biological parents do better across all those measures.'

Cretella cited a recent meta-study conducted by two pro-homosexual researchers. It found that girls raised in homosexual households are more likely to be more aggressive, boys are likely to be less masculine and that both girls and boys engage in sexual experimentation at earlier ages and are more sexually promiscuous.

While the researchers who conducted the meta-study did not regard their findings as negative, Cretella said, 'those of us on the pro-family side look at that and say, 'No, you're rearing children with some gender confusion and you're putting them at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.''

Another documented consequence of same-sex parenting is an increased likelihood that children of same-sex parents will claim a homosexual identity themselves. Cretella noted that multiple studies have found that homosexually behaving teens and young adults suffer increased rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions and suicidal thoughts.

And in the case of boys who adopt a homosexual lifestyle because of the influence of their same-sex parents, Cretella said, they face a 30% chance of being dead or HIV-positive by the age of 30.

Personal Experience

Dawn Stefanowicz has personally experienced some of the negative consequences of homosexual parenting.

In the 1960s and 1970s, from the age of 10 months old, she was raised in a Toronto household where her chronically ill mother lived along with her father and a succession of his same-sex partners. Her father eventually died of AIDS in 1991.

Exposure to her father's promiscuous homosexuality hurt Stefanowicz in a variety of ways, she says. The fact that he had multiple same-sex partners generated profound feelings of insecurity, she said.

'I always had that fear, beginning as a little child, that I could easily be discarded although I was a dependent living in this household and he happened to be my biological father,' Stefanowicz said. 'His partners were more important than I was. That was the sense I had.'

Compounding her insecurity was the death by suicide of two of her father's sexual partners, and the confusion she felt about her own sexual identity because she was a young girl living in a home where male homosexuality and transsexuality were held up as attractive qualities.

Said Stefanowicz, 'It wasn't good enough to be a girl.'

Stefanowicz said she also learned from an early age that she shouldn't discuss what her family life was like. One of the things it included was accompanying her father to sites where the homosexual cruising subculture was occurring, such as parks and beaches and bathhouses.

Along with witnessing her father's abnormal sexual behaviors, Stefanowicz said she also had to deal with other problems that he and his partners had, including mental health issues and addictions.

Other adults who were raised in same-sex households have told Stefanowicz that they had to wrestle with the negative consequences of the same kind of experiences.

Said Stefanowicz, 'We see that as children and we are going to struggle with some of the same issues.'

Ignoring the Consequences

American College of Pediatricians board member Cretella said that the interests of children like Dawn are being ignored in the renewed debate over the legalization of same-sex 'marriage' that was triggered by last month's California Supreme Court decision legalizing such unions in that state.

'The way the issue has been framed by same-sex marriage activists is purely looking at individual rights - the rights of adults,' she said. 'And they have removed any concept of family from the definition of marriage.'

Cretella said this ignores the historical fact that the primary purpose has always been to bond the father to his children and the children's mother, in order to create a healthy family environment where children will thrive.

Said Cretella, 'Marriage has everything to do with family.'

Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, co-author of the Catholic Medical Association's handbook 'Homosexuality and Hope,' said that highlighting this negative reality for children is critically important in explaining why same-sex 'marriage' should not be legalized.

'Children should not be placed in that lifestyle,' Fitzgibbons said. 'All of the sociological and psychological research makes it clear that the gold standard for children is a family life with a mother and a father who are married.'

Stefanowicz agrees. Through her Christian faith and years of counselling, Stefanowicz was able to come to terms with the damage caused by her upbringing and subsequently to marry.

Today, she is an accountant and home schools her two children and operates a website (here) dedicated to providing support and healing to other people reared in homosexual families.

And she's also determined to tell Americans about the heartbreak they are inviting if they allow courts and legislatures to legalize homosexual 'marriage' nationally, as Canada's federal parliament did in 2005.

Said Stefanowicz, 'I'm hoping that many, many people will wake up and start looking at children's best interests.' [NCR]

Read More...

Summary only...

Catholic adoption agencies queing to secularize

Briefing. More charities who have received money for Catholic purposes will be using it for non-Catholic purposes.

From CFNews: The Catholic Children's Rescue Society of the Diocese of Salford will halt a service it has provided since its foundation in 1886 by the time the Government's new homosexual rights legislation comes into force on New Year's Day. Kathy Batt, the director of the CCRS, said the agency would no longer recruit, assess or approve adoptive applicants, though it will continue to provide its post-adoption support services. 'The decision has been taken with regret by the trustees who have been fully informed all the way along,' she said. 'We did not want to separate from the diocese as other agencies have, though that is no criticism of them,' she said. 'In Salford it was quite clear that we did not want to break with the diocese because we have a faith-based agency and the patronage of the Church is very important to us.'

Bishop Terence Brain of Salford, the chairman of the CCRS, said the move to pull out of adoption was partly because of 'legal pressures'. A new social services charity called Caritas Salford Diocese will now be formed from a merger of CCRS and the diocese's Catholic Welfare Societies. Jim Dobbin, a Manchester Labour MP and a Catholic, said he was sure many people would be 'upset' by the demise of the adoption service. 'It is a tragedy,' said Mr Dobbin, the MP for Heywood and Middleton. 'There is a shortage of people willing to adopt generally in the country and there is something very wrong when some of the better and more efficient agencies feel they have to close because they can't conform to what the Government is demanding. I don't think there was any need for this legislation at all. It was forced through and was all done to avoid discrimination but all it has done is to introduce discrimination against agencies that operate according to the principles of a religious faith. The Government will rue the day when it pursued this line of action. It smacks of a secular attack on the Catholic Church.'

The decision comes a week after one of the largest Catholic adoption agencies confirmed it would cut ties with the Church in order to comply with the Sexual Orientation Regulations that were introduced under the Equality Act 2006 to ban discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services and to stay open for business. The Catholic Children's Society of Arundel and Brighton, Southwark and Portsmouth, founded in 1887, deals with about 50 of the 250 annual adoptions handled by the 13 Catholic adoption agencies of England and Wales. The agency has an annual turnover of about £4.5 million, most of which comes from government grants and contracts, but more than £500,000 a year is raised by Catholics in southern England through schools, parish gifts, wills and personal donations. Its annual 'Good Shepherd' appeal in schools and churches alone raises more than £100,000 a year.

The dioceses of Northampton and Nottingham also announced in April that they will withdraw from adoption and that their agencies - which place a combined 30 children a year with new families - will become independent. They will then be able to place children with gay couples but will no longer be able to appeal to Catholics for financial support. Other agencies must decide their futures over the summer in order to meet the deadline set by Tony Blair last year. The trustees of the Catholic Caring Services adoption agency of the Diocese of Lancaster in April voted by eight to two to cut ties with the Church in order to continue its work in finding new homes for 25 children a year and to protect the jobs of 200 staff involved in a range of social work.

But on Sunday Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster issued a letter through the parishes appealing to the trustees to reconsider their decision. He became the first bishop to declare publicly that he is willing to fight to retain his adoption agency, founded in 1934, in the control of the Church. 'Over the generations thousands of Catholics have prayed and contributed to this vital work carried out by their Catholic agency,' the bishop wrote. 'It would not only be heartbreaking, but also a tragedy, if decisions are taken that break this relationship.' The bishop suggested the trustees should amend the constitution to make it clear that the charity operated in accordance only with the religious principles of the Catholic faith. This, he argued, would be legally defensible under the freedom of religion clauses of the Equality Act 2006. 'This would mean that unmarried heterosexual couples would be rejected as prospective parents in the same way and on the same basis as same-sex couples,' he said.

The trustees of the charity and the bishop plan to meet this month to agree a final course of action. Neil Addison, a Liverpool-based Catholic barrister, said there was anger among Catholics at the apparent readiness of the agencies to become independent from the Church. 'Charity trustees seem to assume that they can stop being a Catholic charity and then simply carry on,' he said. But he said the charities were 'established by Catholics and given Catholic money on the basis that it would be used in accordance with Catholic beliefs. To use its funds for un-Catholic purposes seems unethical and possibly illegal,' said Mr Addison.

'It is sad that various Catholic charities are choosing to simply give up without even testing the law first. If gay rights activists had shown the same lack of moral courage homosexuality would still be illegal. If the adoption agencies had stood their ground I think even many gays would have supported them. The destruction of the traditional family is the greatest source of social evil in our society today and Catholic charities need to defend the family.' The bishops have repeatedly complained that they are being forced to give up control of their adoption agencies by the Government. They argue that the agencies cannot remain Catholic and comply with the new rules. One adoption agency chief executive has described the situation as the 'darkest hour in 150 years of Catholic social work in Britain'. The Government is still struggling to find new homes for many of the 4,000 children in care. Official figures last year revealed a 13 per cent fall in the number of children adopted, in spite of a target to increase adoptions by 50 per cent. [Catholic Herald]

Read More...

Summary only...

£10m stolen from Catholic charity

Briefing: in renaming the 'Catholic Children's Society' the 'Cabrini Children's Society' the trustees want to perform the usual trick: change the name to exclude the word 'Catholic' but include a really obscure Catholic reference (how many English Catholics know about St Frances Xavier Cabrini?); keep assets (£10m) entrusted to them for Catholic charitable purposes and use them for something else; and to add insult to injury, continue to tap the Catholic community for donations by talking about the organisation's Catholic past. It's the Catholic future we're interested in, actually! Donations and official connections from the Church should cease. Perhaps readers could say a prayer to St Frances for the conversion of the people in this organisation. Hat-tip to Carpe Canum.

From Fr Finigan: Philip at Carpe Canem has reported on the change of name for the Catholic Children's Society which operates in the south of England:

In response to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and hoping to continue to benefit from the generosity of the Catholic faithful, the Society is now to change its name to the "Cabrini Children's Society" (same initials, geddit!) As Philip comments:

The Catholic Faithful need to know that they’ve just lost £10 million (the society's assets), and been sold down the river of political expediency as it is now technically outside Church jurisdiction. Is there not something in canon law about alienating property?

Maggie Clitherow has some good comment on this issue from her own experience (Don't Know What I'm Doing: So-Called Catholic Adoption Agencies.

I am very pleased to hear that one of the Auxiliary Bishops in Southwark, Bishop John Hine has resigned from the board of the society. This action is very much to be commended.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thomas More Legal Centre: adoption law should be challenged

Briefing.

From the Thomas More Legal Centre: The Church must take the adoption fight to the courts
Neil Addison says it will be disastrous if dioceses pull out of adoption work without a legal battle - Catholic Herald 2 May 2008

Three Catholic adoption agencies have now either closed or ceased to be "Catholic" organisations because of the impact of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). The remaining ones are now also considering their future.

The dioceses which have closed their agencies made the decision because they felt they had no alternative. But a cynic might be forgiven for thinking that past enemies of the Church shouldn't have bothered with "dungeon, fire and sword" and should have relied upon statutory instruments instead.

The Church must, of course, obey the law. But I find it sad that the Church appears to be acquiescing in the most fundamentalist interpretations of the SORs when it could be questioning these interpretations and engaging in the process of deciding what the SORs really mean.

The SORs cannot be looked at in isolation. You also have to consider human rights protections for religious belief, equality legislation prohibiting religious discrimination and, finally, the Adoption Act itself, which makes the welfare of the child the primary consideration. Many questions remained unanswered. For example, is a decision by a Catholic adoption agency only to approve adoption by married heterosexual partners a "homophobic" decision? Or can it be shown objectively to be in the best interests of children? Would a refusal by a local authority to approve a Catholic adoption agency be legal under religious discrimination law? And would a requirement that a Catholic agency approves single-sex parents be a breach of religious freedom protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

When you have such a cocktail of law and competing rights you have ample scope for legal argument, negotiation and compromise.

I do not say that the Church would win every legal challenge to its adoption agencies. But I do believe that the issue is not clear-cut. Even if the Church did not win a case outright it might well win significant points which would allow Catholic adoption agencies to continue while operating in a way which is acceptable to Church teaching.

The law in our country develops through case law and that means that individuals and organisations must be willing to challenge officialdom and official interpretations of legislation. So, when the law affects the Church, the Church must be willing to challenge the application of the law. By choosing to close its adoption agencies the Church appears to be giving up and walking away. If the Church is seen to do that, without at least arguing its case in court, then it will look as if it is unwilling to defend its own principles. That is dangerous for the future of the Catholic Church and Christian involvement in our society. The Catholic Church has been involved in child care for 2,000 years and if the Church in Britain is not prepared vigorously to defend its continued role in this area then what area of Catholic activity will be picked on next?

The Prussian military historian Carl von Clausewitz famously said that "warfare was politics by other means"; the Church must accept that in the modern world litigation has become politics by other means. Personally, I do not like this development but it is a reality. Gay rights activists achieved most of their successes through the courts, not through conventional politics. Other religions have shown a willingness to go to court where necessary to defend their activities. The Catholic Church in Britain has not generally resorted to law to defend itself because it has, in the main, operated in a benign political environment where general Christian principles were accepted and Christianity seen as part of the background culture. That benign political environment can no longer be relied upon and the Church needs to adapt its attitudes accordingly.

I am not suggesting that the Church should adopt an aggressive "I'll see you in court, I know my rights" attitude. Such an attitude would alienate people and also be profoundly unChristian. But there is a difference between being peaceful and failing to challenge where challenge is right. The danger is that, if the Church does not put up a legal fight over the SORs, it will give the appearance of meekly surrendering at the first sign of political pressure. On a more fundamental level, if the Church does not stand up on this issue it will be failing to play its full part in British society and to influence how our society develops.

"For evil to triumph all that is required is for good men to do nothing" is a cliché, but it is nevertheless true. With the great range of anti-discrimination and "hate crime" legislation which has been put into force in a relatively short period of time, we are engaged in a great social experiment: namely, to discover to what extent can a free society tell people what they cannot do or say and still remain a free society. Pope Benedict touched on this paradox in his recent encyclical Spe Salvi; he argued that, when a state tries to create a perfect society and abolish all evil, the state itself becomes the only arbiter of morality - and that way lies totalitarianism. Nobody, I think, denies that we live in a secular society where the Church is one voice among many. But what we as a society are still sorting out is what model of secular society are we to follow: that of America or that of Soviet Russia? That choice is going to be decided in the courts.

When I and others realised that many of the decisions about the place of the Church in our society would be decided in court we chose to found the Thomas More Legal Centre. The Centre provides individuals and organisations with legal advice and help to defend their right to freedom of conscience and Christian practice. We also realised that individual Catholic charities, adoption agencies and so forth, could not take on the financial risks of litigation on their own. Whether through our Centre or in some other way, Catholic charities and the Church itself need to ensure that Catholic organisations are supported collectively in defending their principles. The effect of one Catholic organisation winning or losing a case will affect all other Catholic organisations.

The Church cannot withdraw from its social activities without compromising its essential nature and being seen as irrelevant. But that means that the Church and its organisations must be willing to fight to defend their right to provide services in accordance with Catholic principles. The Church may not win, but if Catholic agencies are to be closed down and children are to be deprived of these services, let that be done, and be seen to be done, by the Government -_and not by the Church. To surrender the Catholic adoption agencies without legal challenge is unjustifiable and could have grave implications for the future of Catholic life in this country.

Neil Addison is a barrister, author of Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law and national director of the Thomas More Legal Centre

Read More...

Summary only...

Nottingham diocese severs links with adoption agency

Briefing. A pity they missed the opportunity to fight the law in the courts.

From CFNews: The Bishop of Nottingham has sent a letter to his priests announcing that the Diocese is severing ties with its Catholic Children's Society, which will no longer be called 'Catholic' and will in fact merge with the local Anglican children's society and have a different name. There will be no church fundraising for it. He cited the Sexual Orientation Regulations as his reason. Saint John Fisher and Saint Thomas More, pray for us.

Read More...

Summary only...

Christians banned from fostering launch appeal

Update: victory in this particular battle. Others faced with the SORs should not give up the fight.

From Christian Concern for Our Nation: Committed Christian couple Eunice and Owen Johns have had their foster care application successfully reinstated by Derby City Council. The couple, who have fostered in the past and have raised four children, were initially told that their views on homosexuality were out of line with diversity standards, and had their application withdrawn . Throughout interviews with social services and meetings with the fostering panel, the Johns maintained their biblical approach to sexual ethics and said that they would love any child regardless of their sexual orientation. The Mayor of Derby is supporting the Johns, and, following intervention by the Christian Legal Centre and extensive media coverage, social services have agreed to reinstate the couples’ application. Please pray the couple will be approved to foster.


Briefing. 24/02/08

From CFNews: Committed Christian couple Eunice and Owen Johns are contesting the decision of Derby Council Social Services to withdraw their fostering application following concerns that their beliefs about sexual ethics and in particular the practice of homosexuality did not meet diversity standards. The couple, who have previously fostered children, were surprised and dismayed to learn that their application had been withdrawn following a series of meetings and interviews with social workers. They feel that their beliefs about the practice of homosexuality are the reason for the Council's unwillingness to take their application any further.

The Christian Legal Centre is supporting the couple and will pursue legal action should the Council refuse to reconsider the Johns' application. It is likely that any action would challenge the diversity standards which the Council allege the couple failed to meet. The Christian Legal Centre comments, 'It is essential we stand for freedom in this vital area. The case of Family Law Magistrate, Andrew McClintock, demonstrates how Christians will find it increasingly difficult to hold Judicial office in Family Law when challenging whether it is in a child's best interests to be placed in a same sex household .

In the same field, the case of Owen and Eunice Johns demonstrates how it will be increasingly difficult for Christian couples to access and be successful in the adoption and fostering process. As Christians we must face head on these important social and legal challenges. It is vital that Christians are able to participate equally in the whole process of fostering and adopting children - whether they are in position of 'placing' the vulnerable children as judiciary, working within social services or as prospective foster or adoptive parents.

Read More...

Summary only...

Call to defend adoption agencies in court

Briefing.

From CFNews: New homosexual 'rights' laws that threaten the closure of more than a dozen Catholic adoption agencies could face a court challenge from a group of lawyers who claim the regulations arc illegal. The Thomas More Centre, a charity set up by Catholic and Anglican lay people, maintains that while there is a wealth of evidence to show that children flourish in families built around a married mother and father, there is none to show that they would equally prosper in the care of gay couples.

The Centre hopes to bring a test case against the Government to reverse the law introduced in April under the Equality Act 2006. Liverpool-based barrister Neil Addison, a founder member, said: If a Catholic adoption agency wanted to continue as it is and say that its policies were in the best interests of the child we would be willing, if we could get the financial backing, to support it in a test case. We think that if you pursue a case to court quite often the decision is not as bad as the original Government policy. There are lots of adoption agencies. Why should they not be able to make their own decisions about what is the best interests of the child? Why is the Government imposing a monolithic view that they must abide by nothing more than an experiment? What is being done in the name of nondiscrimination is actually interfering with people's freedom of choice. We have to understand that freedom of choice is important if we are to develop as a society. To be blunt about it. I drink that diversity officials are the fascists of our age. Political correctness is a new form of fascism and it's imposing a world view on people:'

Catholic agencies in the dioceses of Nottingham, Northampton and Cardiff are currently looking at the possibility of becoming secular charities so that they can carry on their adoption work. But in July one agency -- the Leeds- based Catholic Care -- voted to pull out of adoption altogether, ending a service which places some 20 children with new families each year. Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster also announced in the summer that the Catholic Caring Services, an adoption agency which places children with new families in Lancashire and Cumbria, will probably follow suit rather than abide by the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

This week the bishop said that he would give the Thomas More Centre his full support. 'I think test cases ought to be brought. There should be a test case' He said that the paramountcy principle - which holds that the best interests of the child must be the overriding concern - should apply to a child's right to have a married mother and father. 'I think what legislators are doing is trying to make gay relationships equivalent to marriage,' he said. It emerged lass week that the Government is struggling to fund new homes for many of the 4,000 children in care. Official figures have revealed a 13 percent fall in the number of children adopted, in spite of a target to increase adoptions by 50 per cent.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Fool's Reproach

Briefing. The militant 'gay' organisation Stonewall prefers bullying to reasoned argument, so each year it has an awards ceremony with - among other things - an award for 'Bigot of the Year'. Here are the nominees, from their site:

Archbishop of Birmingham - spoke out against new goods and services protections for gay people, threatening to close welfare services and adoption agencies unless the Government agreed to sweeping exemptions.

Jeremy Clarkson - Top Gear presenter and journalist, refused to apologise after being reprimanded by BBC bosses for derogatory gay jibes on primetime TV.

Bishop of Hereford - withdrew a job offer to a youth worker because he was gay, after subjecting him to a series of humiliating personal questions.

Patricia McKeever - secretive editor of the Catholic Truth website and newsletter. Co-ordinates a relentless campaign to 'name and shame' gay Catholic priests, and has been widely condemned for conducting a 'witch-hunt'.

Ian Paisley Jnr - minister in the new Northern Ireland Executive. Said he was 'repulsed' by lesbian and gay people - has since refused to apologise.

Note the lumping together of Jeremy Clarkson and Ian Paisley Jnr, who apparently are giving vent to unattractive views on whole classes of people, with the other three, who are Stonewall's ideological opponents. Stonewall would like to think they are just the same; this idea must be resisted. The power of Stonewall's publicity machine can be gauged by the list of sponsors scrolling across the bottom of their web page. Do all these banks really want to be associated with Stonewall's mud-slinging?

Congratulation to Archbishop Nichols of Birmingham for raising his head above the parapet in the debate about SORs. He was pipped to the award, however, by the Anglican Bishop of Hereford.

It's typical of Stonewall to refer to the Patricia McKeever as 'widely condemned', when what this actually means is a single article in The Times the inaccuracy of which has now been acknowledged, following a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

'Listen to the fool's reproach: it is a kingly title.' William Blake.

Hat-tip to Catholic Truth Scotland.

Read More...

Summary only...

SORs in the classroom

Briefing.

From CFNews: The Christian Institute writes : 'The Sexual Orientation Regulations do not apply to the curriculum or to teaching, the High Court has ruled. The wording of the Regulations in Great Britain is identical on this point to the Regulations in Northern Ireland. There is therefore a direct read-across from the recent Belfast judgment which applies to all of the UK. This means that homosexual campaigners cannot insist that the Regulations require the use of pro-homosexual story books in primary schools. Nor can they sue schools over the content of lessons. Some diversity trainers have already quoted the Regulations in an attempt to force teachers to promote homosexuality in the classroom They can no longer do so. Confusion over how the Regulations schools arose because similar regulations covering religious discrimination specifically exempted the curriculum to avoid legal clashes over the religious content of lessons. When the Regulations covering sexual orientation discrimination were published there was no such exemption. Understandably, this led many to infer that the Government intended the Regulations to apply to lessons. Under pressure, a Government minister admitted in the House of Lords that how the curriculum is taught 'is caught by the regulations'. But during the Belfast court case. Government lawyers tried to backpedal on that point. We are therefore delighted that the judge clearly ruled that the Regulations do not apply to the curriculum or to teaching. This ruling applies to all of the UK'.

Read More...

Summary only...

More anti-discrimination laws on the way

Briefing: not content with the SORs, the Government wants to go further. See the end for the danger that the Church could be legally forbidden from establishing the real sex of people applying to be priests or nuns.

From CFNews: The Government have published their Discrimination Law Review (DLR) which proposes the biggest ever shake-up to UK discrimination law. It proposes to take every single piece of existing legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age, and put them all into a 'Single Equality Act' which will be overseen and enforced by a new body called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

The Government are proposing to make it illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their religion or belief. However, the definition of harassment is extremely broad, and substantially depends on the perception of the person who makes an allegation of harassment and not the intention of the person accused of harassment. So, a Christian that went to a largely Muslim area to hand out tracts which said that Islam was a false religion, could be sued if a particular Muslim felt that the tract had either 'violated their dignity' or put them in an 'offensive environment'.

The Government have also brought back one of the most controversial proposals that they previously tried to bring in via the Sexual Orientation Regulations only a few months ago. They are proposing that it should be made illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Again, the problem is the really broad definition of harassment. This proposal would mean that although a Church is free under the SORs to gently refuse membership of the church to an unrepentant practising homosexual, that person, if they felt that they had been put in a 'humiliating environment' could sue the Church. Similarly, a homosexual could sue a church if they heard a sermon about sexual morality that included condemnation of homosexual practices.

The Government are also consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote sexual orientation equality. This will mean that local authorities and other bodies will take active steps to ensure that all sorts of organisations do not discriminate based on homosexual practices. The danger is that this will be taken too far and will mean that Government funding is removed from Christian projects or that support is given to projects promoting homosexuality.

The Government are further consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote religion or belief equality. There is a similar danger here that the sort of politically correct decisions (like local councils banning Christmas cards) that increasingly make the headlines, will be multiplied, with public funding being focused on promoting 'minority' religions like Islam and Hinduism.

Another part of the consultation paper seeks views on whether Churches should be able to treat people differently because they have had gender reassignment. If the Government subsequently decided not to allow churches to do so, then a church would not be able to object to a male member of the congregation, who had a sex change (taking on the appearance of a woman), from attending a women's retreat weekend.

The Government are further proposing that the law should protect transsexual people from practices that require them to disclose the fact that their actual sex differs from their physical appearance. So, for example, the Government would allow a man that has had a sex change operation, to be able to keep it secret that he has had that operation.

These are just some of the main provisions of the DLR that are of concern to Christians. The Discrimination Law Review consultation http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/frameworkforfairnessconsultaation

On the transexual priests and nuns issue: Leaders of the Catholic Church in England and Wales have accused the Government of using new equality laws to force them to ordain transsexuals as priests or allow them to become nuns. The bishops of England and Wales said that proposals to ban 'indirect discrimination' against people who have had gender reassignment operations would take away their right to check baptismal and confirmation certificates which would show if candidates for the priesthood, religious life or marriage had a hidden past. The Government plans to change the law so that such records are altered when a person has such an operation. Requesting an exemption, the Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Rev Peter Smith, said: 'Many Christians believe, on strongly held religious grounds, that gender is given before birth and cannot be changed.'

Read More...

Summary only...

Court victory on SORs in Northern Ireland

Briefing.

From CFNews: A High Court Judge in the Belfast High Court has quashed part of the Northern Ireland SORs relating to harassment. The judgment was handed down on 11th September. The case was brought by the Christian Institute and a number of churches. The Lawyers Christian Fellowship report that 'The harassment laws which were scrapped by the judge in Northern Ireland are not present in the regulations which apply to Great Britain. However, the Government has been floating the idea of introducing these kind of laws for Great Britain in its forthcoming Single Equality Bill. Church groups, including the Church of England, have expressed concerns that such laws could be used to sue Christians who express their religious beliefs on sexual ethics while providing a good, facility or service. Mr Justice Weatherup said that the harassment laws in the Northern Ireland sexual orientation regulations had an extended reach "beyond that of discrimination and statutory harassment" (paragraph 43 of his judgment).

These comments will be very helpful in opposing such laws in Great Britain. In response to the High Court ruling Stonewall, Britain's leading homosexual lobby group, said it is not convinced that harassment laws are needed. The Government had argued that the manifestation of religious belief could never have been affected by the regulations. The judge disagreed. He ruled that Christians can make use of Article 9 rights to religious liberty when defending themselves against actions brought under the regulations. He said the belief that the practice of homosexuality is sinful is a belief worthy of recognition. Moreover this belief is a long established part of orthodox Christian belief and of the world's major religions. Having these statements in English law could be extremely helpful when defending religious liberty in the future. Mr Justice Weatherup also said County Courts should consider a Canadian case which established the principle that Christians should not be required to provide a good, facility or service which contradicts their core religious beliefs. Again, we believe this is directly relevant to the Great Britain regulations. The judge also ruled that the regulations do not apply to the school curriculum. The wording of the Great Britain regulations is identical on this point and we are confident that there is a direct read-across. This means homosexual campaigners cannot claim that the regulations require the promotion of homosexuality in school lessons. Lastly, the judge ruled that the regulations do not apply to every action carried out by a faith group which receives some public funding, only the specific activity for which the group receives the money. Again, the wording on this point is identical in the Great Britain regulations and we are confident that the judge's ruling on this matter will apply to faith groups in England, Wales and Scotland. [LCF] 1388.9a

Read More...

Summary only...

Vatican fears criminal prosecution

Briefing. This is no joke, despite the denials of the 'Gay Rights' advocate quoted in the story. European clerics and parliamentarians have already been fined or imprisoned for pro-life or pro-family statements: see here, here and here.

From CFNews: The Vatican is worried its opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and homosexual marriage could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official said in an interview published yesterday. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions. 'We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defence of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state,' Lopez Trujillo told the Catholic news magazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands today, Thursday.

'The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard,' the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9. Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face, but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws.

Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center said the chances of the church being punished for stating its beliefs were slim to none, at least in the United States, though its stances could lead to Catholic organizations losing state funding. 'I cannot fathom a religious organization being punished for speaking its belief against abortion or gay marriage,' said Feldblum, a veteran homosexual rights advocate. 'What is illuminating is not the reality of the legal penalties they face, but an acknowledgment that public morality is shifting under their feet,' Feldblum said. In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European nations now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples - laws the Church is firmly against.

In the interview, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo reiterated that according to church rules, women who have abortions, the doctors and nurses who help them and the father, if he is going along with it, are excommunicated. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. 'It's the same thing. Destroying the embryo is equivalent to abortion,' Lopez Trujillo said. He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights. 'It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right,' the cardinal said. He also compared homosexual marriage to 'absolute emptiness,' saying the only possible couple is made up of a man and a woman. Earlier this month, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a 57-page document in which it said that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world. It also lashed out against contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage. The Vatican's document did not break any new ground, but marked the first sweeping comment on the issues during Pope Benedict XVI's papacy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Diocese can't sack dissident gay Head Teacher

Local action as appropriate: it is unfortunately perfectly credible that Bishop Kelly has been told, and correctly, by his lawyers that sacking this teacher would be contrary to the SORs. On the other hand, the story notes that 'The couple, who live together, had a reception in a parish centre.' The Parish Priest who authorised this should be reprimanded.

From The Telegraph (in part): Lawyers have told the Roman Catholic Church that it cannot sack a Catholic headmaster who has entered a civil partnership with a male teacher.

The Archdiocese of Liverpool has been unable to take action against Charles Coyne, the head of St Cecilia's primary school, who has registered a partnership with Richard Jones, who is believed to work at a nearby school.

Pope Benedict XVI has called civil partnerships "anarchic" and a danger to the family.

Local Catholics and family campaigners have urged the authorities to take action over the "scandal". One churchgoer said: "Senior officials are aware of this yet they have done nothing. It's unacceptable."

Full story here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Coming up in Parliament

Briefing. Please look out for calls for lobbying in the coming Parliamentary session. The embryo issue we have already covered; the Prostitution issue is an attack on public morality; the attempt to criminalise smacking is an attack on parental authority and the family; the Equality bill is likely to be another turn of the screw seen in the SORs.

From CFNews: Embryos. The Human Tissue and Embryos Bill will allow scientists to grow combined animal-human embryos which will be destroyed at 14 days of development. It will also end the requirement for doctors to consider a child's need for a father when referring women for fertility treatment. The Bill allows the creation of a genetically-modified child who has two mums and one dad. The Bill may also be used to open up debate about abortion laws. The Christian Institute has published a 30-minute DVD on this subject. 'Cloning Humans'.

Prostitution. The Criminal Justice Bill includes changes to the law on prostitution. Under the Bill the term 'common prostitute' will be scrapped and, instead of fining those guilty of soliciting for prostitution, courts will be able simply to order them to attend counselling sessions. Further consultation will be undertaken on whether to allow 'mini-brothels'.

Smacking. The 2004 law on smacking - which bans any smack leaving more than a temporary mark - is to be reviewed by the Government. This could open the way for another attempt at an outright ban. Some Cabinet ministers have been calling for Labour MPs to have a free vote on the issue.

Equality. The Government is holding a review of discrimination law with a view to introducing an overarching Equality Bill. It raises several consultation proposals which affect religious liberty including plans to outlaw discrimination against transsexuals in the provision of goods, facilities and services; placing a duty upon public bodies to actively promote equality based on sexual orientation; and making 'harassment' based on sexual orientation or religion unlawful. [Christian Institute].

Read More...

Summary only...

Catholic Adoption Agency in Leeds to close

Briefing.

From CFNews: One of the country's largest and oldest Catholic adoption agencies, Catholic Care, will stop finding parents for children in need due to the government's new laws on homosexual adoptions. The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR), which were rushed through Parliament earlier this year despite opposition from many MPs and religious leaders, require adoption agencies to accept same-sex couples as prospective parents. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor had warned of the possible closure of seven Catholic adoption agencies if the regulations were passed. According to a report in The Daily Mail, Catholic Care, which is based in Yorkshire and run by the Diocese of Leeds, became the first to pull out of the adoption business after a vote by its trustees. In a statement, the charity said it had reviewed its work in the light of new government legislation and decided to gradually reduce its adoption activity and refocus its energy on other vulnerable groups that receive less support. The Daily Mail also reported that Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster wrote to Catholic Caring Services, an adoption charity in his diocese, about his thoughts on ending its adoption program as well by December 2008. Bishop O'Donoghue said the adoption law demands the welfare of the child should come first. Pointing to research, he said: 'We know that what is best for children is to live with (heterosexual) married couples.' [CNA]

Read More...

Summary only...

Anglican bishop condemned for refusing to employ dissident homosexual as youth worker

Latest update: important clarificaction of the law.

From CCfoN (in part): As was expected, the Tribunal reinforced the High Court’s position that there is no difference between sexual “orientation” and sexual “behaviour” in the eyes of the law. It did not matter that the Bishop was not discriminating because Mr Reaney was attracted to men, but because of Mr Reaney’s lifestyle as a sexually active homosexual. The Tribunal decided that on the face of it, Mr Reaney had been unlawfully discriminated against because he was a homosexual.

However, the Tribunal decided that although Mr Reaney was not applying for a job as a clergyman, the post of Diocesan Youth Officer did fall within the “very narrow” exception for which the Church of England could discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was a valuable decision for all churches – Stonewall had argued aggressively that churches should not be able to refuse to employ practising homosexuals in any jobs other than the clergy.

Churches that want to protect the integrity of their ministry should therefore be able to do so, providing the job they are recruiting for involves the employee being “closely associated with the promotion of the Church.” In such a case, it is likely they can ensure that the employee is not a practising homosexual.

However, specifically in relation to the Church of England, the Tribunal drew one key distinction between clergy and non-clergy posts, by saying that “we do not think it would be in accordance with the Issues [in Human Sexuality] statement to require [unmarried] lay persons to commit to celibacy.” Sadly, the equivocal position of the Church of England means that the courts have said that the most that Anglican churches can require of lay employees is that they are not in a practising homosexual relationship during the employment. Lay employees cannot be expected to be repentant about past homosexual behaviour, or to acknowledge that such behaviour was wrong. Of course, this position would change if the House of Bishops and General Synod were to revise the Issues on Human Sexuality statement and strengthen its requirements. Thankfully this part of the judgment does not apply to denominations outside of the Church of England.

(The full press release will appear soon here.)

Update 19/07/07: big hat-tip to Hermeneutic of Continuity for the following, not included in the CCfoN press-release below (our emphasis):

The crucial legal point in this case was highlighted by the solicitor, Alison Downie of Bindman & Partners:
"In this landmark test case the tribunal found not only that he suffered direct discrimination but that if necessary they would have found indirect discrimination in the diocese imposing a requirement of celibacy for lay people in employment within the Church."
So it is now against the law for a Christian organisation to require that its employees undertake to abide by Christian teaching.


Briefing 18/07/07. It seems that John Reaney had had sexual relationships outside marriage, and although he was single at the time of the job interview, did not satisfy Bishop Priddis of his moral character. Priddis' subsequent decision not to employ him as a 'youth worker' has been declared an act of illegal discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, under the SORs. This is exactly what we thought would happen, and is an extremely worrying result.

From Christian Concern for our Nation (and the BBC): “A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official's job by a Church of England bishop.

The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against "on grounds of sexual orientation" by the Hereford diocesan board of finance. Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was "delighted" at the decision.

The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was "naturally disappointed" and may appeal.

During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006. It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard. Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left "very embarrassed and extremely upset" following the meeting and said he felt like "a total waste of space".

During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.

But the tribunal found that the Bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his
future relationships.

Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing. "The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual
orientation," said the judgement. Mr Reaney, who had already worked in two other Anglican dioceses, where he had been praised for his achievements, said he was delighted.

He said the case "demonstrated to many lesbian and gay Christians working for
God within the Church of England that they are entitled to fair and respectful
treatment". But speaking to a news conference in Hereford on Wednesday, the Bishop said: "I still think the decision I made was the right one." "I regret the polarisation of view which takes place when these things happen," he said, adding he had made the decision after a "great deal of prayer and contemplation".

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said the verdict was "a triumph for 21st Century decency over 19th Century prejudice". "We're very happy for John," he said. "The tribunal has rightly made clear that the Church of England cannot
discriminate against gay people with impunity. No-one, not even a bishop, is
exempt from the law."

Under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, it is
illegal to discriminate against people as a result of their sexual orientation,
but the law does contain an exemption for organised religion.”

LCF comment

At first sight this judgment appears to be a serious affront to the freedom for churches to guarantee that their children and teenagers are being taught by people who are living according to the Bible’s clear teaching about sexual morality. The law is shifting rapidly so that where there is a ‘competition of rights’ it is the homosexual’s right that trumps the Christian’s right. This is a situation that needs to be reversed. At the very least, our law should recognise conscience exemptions for Christians so that they can live according to their faith. A fuller analysis of the situation will be made once we have received a copy of the judgment.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bishop of Lancaster: Catholics cannot cooperate with gay adoption

Briefing: local expressions of support would be good. The attempt by any diocese to use the 'arms-length' approach must be resisted for precisely the reason Bishop O'Donoghue gives: it would be proximate cooperation in a grave evil.

From CFNews: Firm stand by Lancashire bishop. Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster says he sees no way in which Catholic adoption agencies can survive under new equality laws. In a letter to priests and the Catholic Caring Services of his diocese, Bishop O'Donoghue said that the new Sexual Orientations Regulations (SORs), which could force adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples, cannot be squared with a Catholic conscience. "Having studied the options', he wrote, 'I cannot see how we can accept the legislation, even under duress." He rejected the possibility, currently being considered in some dioceses, of an "arms-length" solution, in which the Church would remove itself from direct involvement in its adoption agencies. "An arms-length approach ... seems to involve cooperation in something that we oppose," said the bishop. "Nor can I see a way of committing an initial Church contribution to setting up such an agency. I favour rejection, thus withdrawal from adoption and fostering from December 2008 if all else fails." In response to the letter a spokesman for the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales said that the Church's position on adoption agencies had not changed and that Bishop O'Donoghue's letter represented "his own views". In his letter Bishop O'Donoghue urged the faithful to submit their comments to him on the matter.

[Bishop O'Donoghue's address is Bishop's Apartment, Cathedral House, Balmoral Road, Lancaster LA 1 3BT. Tel 01524 32231. Fax 01524 849296]

Read More...

Summary only...

Roman Chief Rabbi supports Church on same-sex unions

Briefing.

From CFNews: A Jewish leader has unexpectedly entered the fray in support of the Catholic Church's position against the legal recognition of homosexual unions. The proposal is being considered under the more generic and less alarming terminology of 'de facto couples.' In a long article just published in the Jewish monthly Shalom, Riccardo Di Segni, Rome's chief rabbi, called the legal recognition of homosexual couples 'unacceptable' and rebuked the other Italian Jewish leaders for their 'strange silence on this hotly debated issue.' He urged the Jewish community to speak out against the Italian government's plans to give certain rights to cohabiting heterosexual and same-sex couples under a bill known as DICO. He noted that this silence was in strong contrast to the Catholic Church's active condemnation of the DICO bill and said there were 'good reasons to break it.' The bill, which has yet to win parliamentary approval, has in fact come under repeated attacks from the Catholic Church. which has expressed particular alarm over its extension to homosexual partners. 'Society is about to make a decision which, according to our traditions, abundantly exceeds permitted limits and it is our duty to oppose these decisions and not remain indifferent,' Di Segni said. Under the terms of the DICO bill, cohabiting couples would be able to register their union, obtaining certain financial and inheritance rights and 'next of kin' rights if their loved one is physically or mentally incapacitated or in a hospital. [The Wanderer]

Read More...

Summary only...