Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Roman Catholic Church pulls out of adoption agencies

They have been steadily falling one by one since New Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, and their passing has scarcely been noticed by the media. The Church argues that its agencies cannot remain both Catholic and conform with the Sexual Orientation Regulations. And so a century of faithful dedication to finding loving homes for the some of the nation’s most vulnerable is drawing to a close. As the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith observes: ‘This is a tragedy. We are taking the ethos out of these adoption agencies and leaving them with a crisis, all because the Government wouldn’t listen.’

One could hardly expect this Government to listen. It is not so much that they are deaf, or even hard of hearing, but they are inflicted with a form of dementia and irretrievably bedevilled with an equalities agenda which emanates from the darkest regions of the other side. They have no care for the respectable or reasonable majority as long as the minorities are pacified and the loudest mouths are drowned out by the bones and pap and bric-a-brac which now pass for policy.

But Cranmer would very much like to know if homosexuals have any interests so vital to their well-being as to necessitate that Catholic adoption agencies discontinue discriminating against them when considering with whom to place children.

The Catholic Children’s Society plans to cut its ties with the Church and be renamed the Cabrini Children’s Society.

That’s nice.

They exchange possibly the only global brand that can compete with Coca-Cola - with all its attendant respect and prestige - for the obscure and cultic, just so that they can pretend to give children to the hundreds of gay parents who will never even enquire there. The dioceses of Nottingham and Northampton have also pulled out of their agencies. The Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, the Rt Rev Kieran Conry, said: ‘The Government has lost out. The Catholic agencies do and did very good work. For the sake of a principle and certain political correctness we are losing some very good facilities.’

And senior bishops ‘put the blame squarely at the door of Government Ministers’.

But Cranmer is not quite so sure.

Bishop Conry said: ‘The Government has forced us into this position by obliging the adoption agency to place children with same-sex couples.’ The Bishop of Northampton, the Rt Rev Peter Doyle, said he was ‘extremely sad’ that his agency was becoming a secular charity. And the Bishop of Nottingham, the Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, said: ‘We have been coerced into this. I am not happy about it at all.’

Where is their backbone? Where is their moral fibre? Where is their conviction, their faith, their capacity to endure until the end?

They just don’t make martyrs like they used to.

The deadline for these agencies to conform to the law is not until the end of this year, so closing prematurely is a little strange when one considers the important work these agencies do. And one has to ask what are bishops for if it is not to confront such blatant anti-Christian legislation? Where is the dependence on God that when they are brought to trial and accused unjustly that they shall be given the words to answer their accusers?

Catholic Care in Leeds is intending to remain open and will fight any challenges in the courts.

Good for them.

And Cranmer prays blessings upon their endeavors, and hopes that their success will shame the spineless and faithless bishops of Arundel, Northampton and Nottingham.


Anonymous OLSP said...

The Bishop of Lancaster is also hoping to fight it, but the rest of the Trustees seem too scared - lets pray for them as well.

4 June 2008 at 08:18  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

This nasty laabour government can pass all the laws it likes but it cannot change how you feel in your heart. The photo you show of two men with that little girl made me feel sick, when you know the context that it was shown in. It is wrong.

4 June 2008 at 08:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are occasions when a child can and should be placed with gay adopters. I have personally seen cases where this was the "least worst" alternative for children who had suffered multiple breakdowns and risked serious emotional damage unless placed with gay couples who had proper and established attachments for and from the child.

That however is far away from the
damage inflicted on the agencies in the way described.

It is not as if gay adopters lack a plethora of agencies which can address their needs.

It is, plainly not about making such adoptions possible but about forcing political correctness upon the Catholic church.

4 June 2008 at 09:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is money to be made in the caring services.
CORA Learning in Scotland take £4k a week to look after children at risk that local councils find hard to control. On a rough estimate they take in £28M a year.
Now you get the picture why the RCC cares so much.

As to 'forcing political correctness upon the Catholic church' - The church looks after the church first and foremost. It never bows you have to bow to it.

Wake up - smell the coffee - see the church for what it is. A machine that sells souls and feigns good works.

4 June 2008 at 10:15  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

gordon brown says hes listening ??

the church has always been a good provider of loving homes for children , they are wasting the heritage as well as the christ centerd healing that often occures.

stupid this one really stupid .

perhaps someone is getting the money ,

4 June 2008 at 11:56  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Your Grace has articulated well the concerns of many Catholics, what are these Bishops doing and why are they not challenging this travesty of justice in the courts? If they were to appeal for funds to fight, we (RCs) would not be found wanting, instead what we get are fine words and a paucity of leadership.

Anonymous (a nom de plume too much trouble?) what an unpleasant post, your hatred of Christianity is plain; as is your judgement of others by your own narrow-minded values, evident from the dubious misuse of information to support questionable conclusions. This may convince your cerebrally challenged friends, but you show contempt for His Graces reader when you ply your petty, one-dimensional arguments here.

You dishonestly imply that the RCC is somehow fraudulently making vast profits out of these Children. Your implication is offensive and unfounded, if you have evidence of your insinuation prove it and report the offence to the Police, we see you for what you are, I suggest you keep your poison bottled in future, that way your ignorance remains hidden, at least until you open your mouth.

4 June 2008 at 14:14  
Anonymous John said...

recusant, anonymous is anonymous, let him remain anon, a little like golum ......... living in the depths of his own despair, or is that diaper.

but ........
Will the government ban the Catholic Church entirely ? Sad days ..........

4 June 2008 at 19:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a good guy anon who just hasn't had the time to figure out the way to post a nom de plume.

I also know what I am talking about as I am the anon with over 30 years experience of dealing with adoption.

The virulently anti Christian anon does not actually know what is under discussion here - I do!

It does cost a vast amount to keep children in Care which is one of the reasons that Blair put a priority on shipping children out of Care and into Adoption. They gave financial incentives to Councils that could hit adoption targets.

The State is a poor parent and I am not against adoption for many children although the unlooked for consequence of the policy was to go for the soft targets and try to fast track young babies into adoption without giving the parents a fair chance.

However the Catholic Agencies were not part of the sector that cared for children and made the money to which our ignorant friend alludes.

When a child was to be adopted, some could be adopted within the scope fo local adoption initiatives through local recruitment. Other children were more difficult to place and needed a more widespread search for suitable adopters, which might have been because teh child was particulraly damaged or had terminal illness or a difficult cultural/ racial heritage that could not be easily matched in the original Local Authoity's schemes.

It was then that Councils turned to the Catholic agencies where the Church sponsored agencies had recruited vetted and prepared potential adopters ready for swift matching and removal OUT of the care system - saving the weekly high cost to the Council Tax payer They were paid a fee for the costs of the professional service they undertook which complemented what the LocalAuthority was also doing in its own way. The agencies never became the carers themselves of the children and so never were paid - or wanted - the sums which nasty anon in his suspicious and malevolent way attributed to them.

The kinds of children which the agencies dealt with were often very hard to settle and it took special people to offer to care for them. These were those who followed the compassionate example of our Lord, and the loss of this option is a grave disservice to the children.

So to our poor misguided anon I simply say - do not confuse your standards with ours

4 June 2008 at 21:57  
Blogger Earwicker said...

Bad anon's post is illogical. If the church's interest in the adoption business were financial as he suggests, then it would not abandon this allegedly lucrative practice for the sake of maintaining its principles.

4 June 2008 at 22:53  
Anonymous bOB said...

Its worth pointing out for "First Anon" that CORA is not the Catholic Church in Scotland's adoption agency but rather a seperate body which runs care homes (what used to be called borstals). It costs so much (assuming his figures are accurate) beacuse they are basically running a facility that has to b eboth school and prison with the associated high staff-"pupil" ratio and high staffing and security costs. I imagine that CORA satisfies the SORs since they'll imprison anyone the Courts send them!

The St Margaret Adoption Society is the Scottish Catholic adoption agency and the Scottish Bishops have pledged to keep on fighting for it.

4 June 2008 at 22:54  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Anon 21:57

Took me a while too.

Where it says 'Choose an identity' pick 'Name/Url' and enter your name in, er, the 'name' box. You don't need a URL, whatever one of those is. You do need to try interpret the word verification thingy; not very easy if you're dyslexic like me.

I think Catholic Care should have a strong case if it took it to the European Court of Human Rights. But when it wins, so will the gays when they counter-sue. Hmmmm. Rather short-sighted, this legislation, isn't it.

4 June 2008 at 23:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Cramer

One thing that seems to always be forgotten, in this ever more selfish and false rights driven world, is the welfare and psychological well being of the child.

Despite conclusive evidence that not having a father is very bad for children, we now have the even worse prospect that children will grow up with out a mother, of all things.

This is bad enough when it is an act of god or plane bad luck, but for the state to encourage such things is a disgrace to humanity.

It may or may not be a problem for god who really knows for sure? Although IMO it is very much best not to run the risk, just in case he might get very angry indeed.

If there is one thing we can all do without right now is an angry god,as well as a totally crazy devoutly evil ruling elite. God does not usually take prisoners, to say the least.

The good news is that I find it very unlikely that many gay men will want to adopt children when it comes down to it. Surly one of the advantages of being homosexual is not having to have children simply to placate the more pressing natural needs of a female partner. Lesbians very different, but then, at least the child will have a mother.

The answer for the theological problems the Catholic church clearly has, would of course be simple, if indeed our ruling class wanted a simple answer.

They could just let them do as they please using straight forward principals of property rights. While allowing specialist gay adoption agencies to be set up if such a thing was economically viable.

They do not do this because they want to deliberately bugger up, so to speak, normal logical, religiously instructed reproduction based society. So our Ruling elites can prepare us for the later horrendously nasty 4th Reich type fascist changes they have long since planned to make.


5 June 2008 at 01:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surly one of the advantages of being homosexual is not having to have children simply to placate the more pressing natural needs of a female partner

For some.

For others, like myself, it is often a source of sorrow that I will not feel the joy of Fatherhood as my contemporaries have.

There is adoption of course, but the process, in this country at least, is so ludicrously bureaucratic as to be almost impossible to negotiate.

This is why we have care homes full of children - and make no mistake, the state is a very bad parent - with terrible life chances and outcomes.

If you can give a child a safe, warm, loving home you are half-way there. Regardless of belief or sexuality our children are better off in family homes than with Local Authorities.

5 June 2008 at 15:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you can give a child a safe, warm, loving home you are half-way there. Regardless of belief or sexuality our children are better off in family homes than with Local Authorities.

Agree very much, however you state also the following.

For others, like myself, it is often a source of sorrow that I will not feel the joy of Fatherhood as my contemporaries have.

There is adoption of course, but the process, in this country at least, is so ludicrously bureaucratic as to be almost impossible to negotiate.

So you believe just because you want something, so much you feel sorrow [you poor thing you ], you have a right to have it. Does that include robbing people?

You have no such god given right, nor should you have one. Claiming as an excuse the FACT that adoption is slow and state care is a very bad option and seriously bureaucratic, is no excuse at all.

If you cared about children instead of your own selfish wants, you should spend your efforts trying to help reopen Catholic adoption agencies and nag to bits your MP to help make the system far less bureaucratic.

Did you yourself have a mother?

If so she must have been a damned evil bitch of a one, for you to want to be responsible for any child not having the chance to gain a mother for themselves.

Adoption to a single mother is in a vast majority of cases preferable then to two homosexual men, for several reasons. One of which being that two gay men are just as bad at understanding parenthood, [ for example when it is time to have sex and to not have sex,] as two straight men would be, given the chance. Another being that a women has certain assets that enable her to find and retain a man if needed.

Once two men break with their relationship, who is going to keep the child? Do you propose the cutting the child in half solution?

Men are very often indeed far too generally selfish in just about all respects, to even understand what I am on about.

As you have clearly shown.


One day in the not too distant future children will be made to order products, produced in Ruling elite owned factories.

Or off the shelf goods, sold to the highest bidder like any other product in the market place.

Which is why our ruling elites are getting us used to the fact, while doing all they can to reduce our sperm counts, womens fertility rates and destroying our marriages as fast as they dare.


5 June 2008 at 19:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Atlas, I'd answer the points above. But for the fact, you are seriously bonkers:

Did you yourself have a mother?

If so she must have been a damned evil bitch of a one

Enough Said.

5 June 2008 at 21:32  
Anonymous some bloke said...

Lots of people think that two gay Dads are a bad idea, but not all

As the ( male, gay ) product of The Church Of England Childrens' Society happily adopted by a straight couple I share the concern of Your Grace and wonder why the Catholic Agencies failed to stand up for themselves and those in their care.

I have recently met at least one mother from whom the State has tried to kidnap her child in the name of 'welfare' when in fact all they were doing was enhancing their own 'performance targets' re adoption.

It works like this.
The Government wishes to showcase its' performance on adoption ( as part of its' fight with the Catholic Church no doubt ).
Fact. Black children are difficult to place with adopters. Fact. Disabled children are difficult to place with adopters. Fact. children with siblings are difficult to place with adopters as are those with mental or behavioural problems and those who are just older.

Social Service departments go out of their way to identify vulnerable ( single ) pregnant women who they can easily " asses " as 'in need ' then remove their children at birth and place them for adoption simply because they are 'new-born', white, not black, nor disabled, nor yet "labelled" nor siblinged.

These children are relativly easy to get adopted and so local Social Service gain maximum credit and Funding for doing so. In the meanwhile the original black, older, disabled, siblinged, behaviouraly troubled children remain exactly where they were, in the Childrens Home.

IMHO, this is a shocking disgrace of more import than those few male gays who might wish to adopt.

5 June 2008 at 23:54  
Anonymous British Patriot said...

I feel a Purge coming on, no nothing to do with that Delicious Thai Curry I had last week.

We are at present working discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.

Arnold Toynbee.

Did you read recently Gorbachev saying we should not forget that Stalin Murdered Millions.

The EU Invokes the Death Penalty ( as usual this is hidden away in the footnote of a footnote )

Why Now, could it be that Gorbachev sees what is going on, 42 Days, the EU invokes the Death sentance in time of civil strife.

Civil Strife ?

Coincidence ?

I feel a Purge Coming on, and we are the intended victims.

Wakey wakey People.

6 June 2008 at 02:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Always interesting, your Grace, to see not only the intellectually and morally debilitating effects of 'political correctness' but of its mirror image, 'political soundness' (first identified by Mr Matthew Parris in 'The Spectator' a few years ago). 'PS' has its own totems, shibboleths and obsessions: an ingrained and near universal aspect of the ps is the noisy sneering contempt, sometimes approaching, hatred, of homosexuals (especially male homosexuals). [A certain, querulous, fearful mindset prone to conspiracy theories/plots/wild exaggeration, disdainful of science and reason, exemplified by poor Miss Melanie Phillips (as absurd in her way as Miss Toynbee), fears of 'world government', conflation of the unwanted ambitions of the EU with satanic dangers, a proud but ignorant wholescale dismissal of the AGW hypothesis (no you can't claim Pope Benedict as support , and, no, justified scoffing at Mr Al Gore is not the same as scrutinising AGW theory)].The constraints of ps, as with pc, lead to contradictions with respect to children, families, adoption and fostering.

I imagine that few here would disagree with the principle (set out in s, 1 Children's Act 1975) that the interests of children are to be "paramount". Nor do I think that it is controversial to state that in almost all circumstances the worst possible way to raise a child is 'in care' [sic](obviously 'in care' will be preferable to severe neglect or abuse). Finally I hope that we would agree that both intuitively and on the basis of empirical evidence, the ideal model for raising a child is by its parents, married.

From the main principle and the two assertions I derive a few secondary principles:
1. 'The best is the enemy of the good', that is to say, in seeking to uphold an ideal and by shunning 'sub-optimal' solutions we may well do more harm than good. Thus the pc will do their damndest to stop adoption/fostering of black children by white or mixed-race couples. Ideally same race adoption/fostering is preferable but there is a disproportionately large number of black children 'in care' and a disproportionate number of eligible black couples. Is it really best for a black child to languish 'in care' than be raised by a couple whose racial classification is other than a social worker's ideal?
2. In seeking to further the best interests of a child we should be wary of fallaciously arguing from the general to the universal; that is to say, in some (rare) situations some family set-ups that fall below the ideal (single parents, gay couples) may be capable of providing a suitable home for an adopted/fostered child;
3. The primacy of what is best for children excludes and must over-ride extraneous notions such as adult 'rights'. Thus it is both grotesque and evidence of unsuitability for some gay people to assert that they have a 'right' to be given equal consideration in adoption/fostering proceedings. So too is it a nonsense for infertile married couples to argue that they have a 'right' to receive unlimited IVF treatment, at tax payers' expense, so that they can raise a family: ps dogma (with which I happen to agree in these instances) deprecates industrial scale abortion and profligacy with tax revenue; that being so one might imagine that the infertile would look to adopt?
3. Just as one should not argue from the general to the universal regarding family arrangements so too one should not assume that what may be the best arrangement for children in general will hold true for all children. For exanple I know of two young, gay, black men who, at 14, were violently thrown out by their (Jamaican) fathers/stepfathers and subsequently, successfully, fostered by white, gay male couples. I look forward to his Grace's communicants' erudite and intelligent arguments that those boys should have been placed 'in care'...
4. The primacy of the interests of children may demand that other principles must give way in the case of conflict. Thus the argument that the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 should have expressly granted an examption to Christian (in practice RC) adoption agencies as first any reduction in adoption opportunities must entail an increase in children placed 'in care', secondly the RC adoption agencies were renowned for placing a disproprtionately large number of the most 'difficult' and damaged children.
5. There is an important distinction to be made between placing children in a sub-optimal adoptive/fostering arrangement (e.g unmarried couples)and actively seeking to conceive children who will inevitably be reared in sub-optimal conditions: thus a single woman with no realistic hope of a stable relationship or a lesbian seeking the assistance of the turkey baster are to be criticised for they deliberately seek to bring into the world a child as opposed to such people adopting/fostering a child where they may well provide a better home than the dreaded 'Childrens' Home'.

So what is it to be then; ps dogma or protecting and nurturing children?

von Hayek

7 June 2008 at 03:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a post-script to my earlier post and the idea of 'political soundness'...I am indebted to Mr Homophobic Horse for the link provided by him in another thread. Here is a response from a Mr Laurence Auster (admittedly the poor chap with his obsessive paranoid delusions is a rather extreme example of ps)to one of his novitiates: "Now you're thinking correctly and like a traditionalist. "

von Hayek

7 June 2008 at 07:54  
Blogger sexy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

14 January 2009 at 07:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older