Durham damns Blair as 'deeply unwise'

The Prime Minister has announced that there will be no exemption for Catholic adoption agencies under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Instead, there will be a delay until the end of next year before they come into force, and during that time, Catholic agencies will have to refer gay couples to other agencies. The full statement, made in the Lobby this afternoon, Monday, is reproduced below, along with Ruth Kelly's response. Significantly, LibDem MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed it as the "first time" the Government has "stood up" to the religious lobby on a matter of public policy. His full statement is below as well. But the strongest statement came from  Bishop Tom Wright of Durham. I was talking to him this afternoon on something else, to be blogged separately soon, and took the chance to ask him what he thought. He did not mince his words, and launched into an excoriating attack on almost every aspect of the present "Labour" Government. In fact, he was so angry he almost forgot to mention Iraq, throwing it in for good measure only at the last minute. The full quotes are below, but first, I was much moved this week to read my former colleague Andrew Pierce's testimony of his life as an adopted, gay Catholic. He actually supports the Church's stance - he was one of those who, without Catholic agencies, might have had a lifetime in care. There are lots of links to many interesting articles as usual at Thinking Anglicans and Anglican Mainstream. (Photo Gill Allen of The Times)

Dr Wright, in his car on his way to address a conference at Swanwick, was furious with the Government. "There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on this one given 18 months or so." he said.  "This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour - which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control - the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.

"Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works. At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies - and I haven't even mentioned Iraq - the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then."

I am not sure there's much hope of Gordon Brown backing down on this one without alienating large parts of the party, but on the other hand, the prospect of losing thousands of badly-needed votes in Scotland might temper his opinion a little.

The Roman Catholic response from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was initially predictably muted. His critics will say that the Cardinal, having come out fighting a few days ago, has bottled it. (I wonder what the reaction will be in Rome? Will the Pope accept his resignation this summer, clearing the way for AB Nichols, who won the battle on education?)

But on the Today programme Tuesday morning, the Cardinal was in fighting spirit again. Asked about the Bishop of Durham's comments on this blog, the Cardinal responded: "There is legislation and legislation. Some legislation however well-intended does created a new kind of morality, a new kind of norm, as this does. The legislation about the adoption by homosexual people of children... it seems to me we are having a new norm of what marriage is. I think normally children should be brought up by a father and a mother. We hold that as extremely important. Clearly the Government has a right to legislate. Homosexual couples clearly are able to adopt in other agencies. But we want to hold on to that principle."

He also made the point that the Catholic Church does not intend to close agencies, but that they will lose local authority funding if they do not comply with the law.

By coincidence, the Catholic bishops' standing committee was meeting when the PM's statement appeared, so they had an opportunity to discuss it together. The Cardinal is clearly going to aim for some kind of deal, to avoid the Church having to close the agencies down. I understand the bishops were given some more detailed notes from Downing Street, outlining how this might be achieved, and the Cardinal's statement reflects that. Privately, some of the Catholic bishops are furious. One insider said: "Twenty-one months! It could have been 21 years. If something is morally wrong, what's the difference?" We can expect a more detailed response from the Catholics soon. Meanwhile, the Cardinal said: "It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies.  We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience.  We look to the forthcoming Parliamentary debate to address some of the fundamental issues centred on the well-being of the child, whose needs must always be put first. We note and welcome, however, the Government’s expressed desire that the experience and excellent work of our agencies is not lost, especially for the benefit of needy children. We appreciate the two year period that will be established for independent assessment.  We note that one of its purposes will be to 'ensure the valuable expertise of faith-based adoption agencies in successfully placing the most vulnerable children, including the full range of post-adoption services, is retained and developed' (Terms of Reference).  We understand that Local Authorities will continue to work with and fund our Catholic agencies in their vital and sensitive work during this period. This debate has raised crucial issues for the common good of our society.  We believe there is an urgent task to reach a new consensus on how best the public role of religious organisations can be safeguarded and their rights upheld. An important part of our Catholic tradition is to work constructively with the Government in mutually respectful cooperation, in which we can act with confidence and integrity in the service of the common good."

The Prime Minister had said in a statement read out to the Lobby: "Over the last few days I have listened to the strongly-held views on all sides on the issue of adoption agencies and the new sexual orientation regulations.  I have heard from representatives of gay rights groups and the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches as well as Jack McConnell, who has been making sure the Scottish perspective is heard in these discussions.  While views obviously differ, everyone is agreed that, above all, the interests of the child and particularly the most vulnerable children must come first.  I believe we have now found a way through that achieves this and which all reasonable people will be able to support. 

"I start from a very firm foundation: there is no place in our society for discrimination. That is why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that is why there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering publicly-funded services from regulations which prevent discrimination.

"This will be made clear in the regulations that the Government will lay before Parliament shortly. In the interests of children, they will include a transition period before these regulations come fully into force at the end of 2008 for existing adoption agencies. This will be coupled, during this period, with a statutory duty for any adoption agency which does not process applications from same sex couples to refer them to another agency. I have also asked for a regular independent assessment from adoption and child welfare experts on the impact of the sexual orientation regulations on adoption in order to maintain the existing body of expertise.

"I am convinced that this is a package which has the interests of children, and particularly the most vulnerable, at its heart. It recognises the hugely valuable role played in adoption by charities and volunteers, including those inspired by religious faith, ensure we do not lose their expertise and services while upholding and extending the Government’s record against discrimination in all spheres."

Ruth Kelly responded: "The Prime Minister has made a statement on the arrangements for the sexual orientation regulations which will be implemented in April this year. These regulations will provide protection for individuals from unfair treatment because of their sexual orientation, in relation to goods and services.  This covers, for example, shops and hotels, the delivery of health and education services and the rental and sale of premises.

"The approach on adoption is a positive breakthrough in eliminating discrimination while recognising the need for a practical approach that ensures the most vulnerable children are found loving homes.  This approach should be welcomed by everyone on what has been an extremely complex issue.  I have met a broad range of those with a direct interest in these regulations and each has had passionately held views, expressed with real conviction.

"Two things are clear.  First, that everyone wants to ensure that as a Government we tackle discrimination and second, no one wants to lose the excellent adoption expertise that helps some of the most vulnerable children.  The package announced today, gives us the opportunity to meet both of those tests.

"The transition arrangements will give adoption agencies time to adapt and address how they work alongside an independent assessment of the process to ensure that the high quality expertise that exists is not lost.  There will be no exemptions on adoption.

"During the period up to 2008 we will look to faith based adoption agencies to work with us on how they might adapt their methods of operation to meet the new legal requirements. An independent team will be reporting to the Prime Minister on the practicalities of ensuring that the needs of vulnerable children and their adoptive parents will continue to be met both during the transition period and thereafter.  Clearly listening to the experts on child welfare and adoption is vital.

"We have had the debate and heard a range of views - many of them expressed with passion and conviction.  As a result we now have a workable solution.  Good government is about robust debate and finding solutions that meet our principles in a practical way.  This is the right way forward. I hope that all concerned will now work with us to implement the package we have announced today. At the end of the day, we all know that there is a wide range of potential adoptive parents out there, including lesbians and gay men who can provide a loving home for children.

"This Government has a proud record on equality and supports a society where every citizen is treated fairly and with respect. Over the last decade, it is this Government which has done more than any other to build a decent and cohesive society.  Today’s announcement is a breakthrough that should be welcomed by everyone.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams of  the Lawyers’ Christian, which has led the campaign against the regulations, was not so sure.  "The reason why this exemption has been sought by Catholic Adoption agencies is because of their churches teaching of over 2000 years that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is wrong. It is difficult to see how 18 months is going to change this position," she said. "The effects of these regulations will go far beyond adoption agencies and will reach into every area of public life. They are in danger of excluding men and women of deeply held religious conviction from positions of public importance because they will not submit to this new morality."

Dr Harris, pictured here at his party conference, and who is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said: "The real problem here is that the Government is providing a single take it or leave it option for MPs on the whole of the regulations. It will be vital that the Government does not provide any other exemptions from discrimination to religious organisations beyond those provided in the Northern Ireland regulations. This is the first time that the Labour party has stood up to the united lobbying of religious organisations seeking special treatment in public policy matters and that is a welcome new development."

Comments

[J Pearce]

I would like to add to Franks response to SpVat2, by postulating that I believe that many religious people also consider themselves as inhabitants of a qualitatively "superior" moral continuum - compared to the non-religious - precisely because they possess a "religious conscience".

In some ways, this is understandable - after all, what is the point of following a particular set of beliefs if you do not believe yourself, that it makes you a "better person"?

Why else would the ABC and MCB voice their support for the "conscience" of Catholic adoption agencies, if they did not believe that the moral values of their "conscience" were implicitly superior to the values as enshrined by the laws proposed by the government?

The question is, on what basis do they claim legitimacy of the precedence of their "conscience"? And does it stand up to intellectual scrutiny? I would argue no.

[J Pearce]

This is a most relevant news story. Note that the description includes the words "god fearing". I hope it goes some way to balancing the scaremongering being peddled about gay adoption:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6334887.stm

[Christopher]

To BARRY HODGES. You don't need to shout! We can read lower case and it is more polite to your readers. I think Spirit of Vatican II answers your point already. However, the turban may afford some protection - obviously better than nothing - but the wearer only affects his own life. Religious exemptions from equality laws give the right precisely to demean the lives of others.

[Frank Schnittger]

"But precisely that is the point: the human conscience as such, and not religious conscience" - Spirit of Vatican II

If that is the case, SpiVat2 then we are not talking about religion at all, but the secular world, where every human is considered as equal before the law and in their entitlement to express their views and vote accordingly.

Consequently this becomes a purely political argument about what taxpayers want their money to be used for - and in this case 99% of voters have voted for parties which do not support discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is the political orthodoxy of the land.

Consequently no adoption agencies practicing such discrimination are entitled to public funding. Those that wish to continue to do so can do so as private agencies tolerated under the principles of pluralism and freedom of conscience.

The Archbishops are trying to have it both ways: claiming to speak for all in defence of the rights of conscience, and yet expecting all taxpayers to fund their particular doctrinal obsessions.

Rights of conscience are respected (within the limits already discussed - e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) - but what the Archbishops really need to learn to respect is the democratic right of the majority not to support such politically unorthodox views and practices.

They could start by encouraging greater democracy in their own organisations, as they seem to have a very limited understanding of how democracy actually works, and of how a democracy cannot give a privileged place to any one sector of the community.

[Christopher]

It is all very well to say that a child's adoption is not a matter of life and limb, but it very well might be as we know only too well from the case of Victoria Climbié. What better credentials did the adopter have as a blood relative, heterosexual AND religious? (Too much so, it appears.) Puritanical nanny-state zealotry may get out of hand but then so can religious dictatorship. But these are general dangers to be avoided. My point was that in the case of adoption we should precisely avoid basing decisions about the good of a unique child on generalities. The bishops' 'conscience' objection just shuts too many doors - and it looks less a matter of principle the more they explain it, and more a matter of dogmatism against partnerships. Would your catholic chemist refuse to sell condoms to a woman whose husband had AIDS, I wonder? The complaint about moral relativism, with the pope turning morals into absolutes only is the way of the steamroller, it seems to me.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"Spirit of Vatican II - religious people don't have a monopoly on voluntary work, or on "conscience". In fact it is an insult to the many people working in the voluntary sector who do not wish to discriminate against gays to somehow imply that they do not have a conscience, or that their consciences are somehow of lesser value."

But precisely that is the point: the human conscience as such, and not religious conscience, is what Archbishops Williams and Sentamu, and also Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, are talking about. You will not find anywhere in their utterance the faintest hint that they consider conscience to be a religious preserve, let alone a Christian or Catholic one -- if Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor were to suggest such a thing he would be contradicting Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae.

As to the conscience of Jehovah's Witnesses, the matter is rightly taken out of their hands if a child's life is in danger (though of course persuasion is preferable to coercion in this case). But in the case of penalizing Catholic chemists who won't sell condoms, Catholic doctors who won't do abortions, Catholic adoption agencies who won't accept gay couples, or for that matter gay innkeepers who believe they are conscientiously providing a service to gay guests and who refuse straights, there is NO danger to life or limb, and puritanical nanny-state zealoutry can get out of hand.

[BARRY HODGES]

TONY BLAIR STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GRANT EXEMPTIONS TO LEGISLATION ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS,
HOWEVER, THE MOTORCYCLE CRASH HELMET
RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION ACT 1976 DOES EXACTLY THAT BY GRANTING AN EXEMPTION TO SIKHS.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR BLAIR IS
SUFFERING FROM POLITICAL AMNESIA

[grazyna soderbom]

Perhaps Blair is a Christian, perhaps not, but he certainly bends to pressure of all the lobby groups and US presidents for whatever reason whatsoever. If he truly was a Christian he would stand firm in his faith and do what is right by it. How the minority holds such sway over a country is incredible, people aren't even allowed to wear a crucifix to school or work in 'Christian Britain'. We are in need of missionaries to re-evangelize such a wasteland. Shame on you, Labour Govnmt.

[jeff in kabul]

Homosexuals make up about 1 in 10 of the worlds citizens. Homosexuals still manage to commit nearly 4 in 10 predatory sexual acts with children. Still think this is a good idea?

[Christopher]

Spirit of Vatican II, I agree with you over Andrew Sullivan who incidentally is not only gay and catholic but also a republican. And I agree, why should bigotry be respected? The catholic church refers to informed conscience and I should have thought, in the case of sexual orientation, that new research into its aetiology should make the church more careful about denouncing something which is being revealed as a widespread and natural phenomenon throughout the animal kingdom and present in the human species throughout its history and in all cultures since the beginning.

But sometimes a person's conscience has to be put aside for a greater good. The Jehovah Witness parent may refuse a blood-transfusion for himself, believing in good conscience that it is forbidden in the Bible but he may not impose his conscientious objection on his child in the the law of this country. Thus the good of the child is judged as superior to his parent's conscience in this case. Let a person's conscience be respected where it does no harm to anyone but himself. When it adversely affects another's good than doesn't it have to take second place? Thus the catholic bishops have a conscientious objection to placing a child with gay parents (plural - it seems not with a single gay parent!). This has to be weighed against two other claims that may compete with it for recognition; let's call them A and B. A, represents the specific case of a given child's needs: if it is deemed by the professionals that a certain child would flourish better with gay parents then the bishops would have no moral right to deny that for reasons of their own conscience, however strongly they hold those objections since it is the child's life, not theirs that is affected. B, represents a more general principle: if gay people as a group have a right to be considered as potential adopters (that's all it is, not a right to adopt per se) and from this group some applicants have been ajudged suitable, they thereby widen the pool of possible adopters. For children of category A, in particular those who would flourish better in a non-heterosexual household, then the bishops' right to conscience must take second place. This is not moral relativism, it is moral realism.

We should not forget that in a perfect world there would be no need for adoption. No unwanted children, no family breakups, no offspring from rape, no children abused by their heterosexual parents, no offspring born out of wedlock. But that is not how things are - the world is not perfect and the best of all possible worlds for a given child might very well be a loving home with two women or two men rather than being left, because of the bishops' intransigence, to a less suitable married couple or to life in an orphanage. All of us devoutly hopes the tender mercies of the religious brothers at places like St Vincents are a thing of the past, and let's hope religious inflexibility never again condemns a child to that - but we should not forget that the church did so quite recently. The bishops have to be a lot more honest with themselves and us about what their conscience really means in this situation - quite simply that they put the welfare of children first - even when it contradicts church rules. The bishops should realise that an informed conscience leading them never to say never is not to be too easily dismissed as moral relativism.

[Frank Schnittger]

Spirit of Vatican II - religious people don't have a monopoly on voluntary work, or on "conscience". In fact it is an insult to the many people working in the voluntary sector who do not wish to discriminate against gays to somehow imply that they do not have a conscience, or that their consciences are somehow of lesser value.

I have elaborated on the Tony Blair thread the political principles which apply here. Basically the political orthodoxy which is upheld by virtually every party in the U.K. is that it is unacceptable to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

The principle of pluralism implies that of course it is fine for people in the voluntary or religious sector to have a different view, and to act accordingly, but they cannot expect state endorsement or taxpayers money to support such work.

So fine, let those in the voluntary sector who wish to do so continue to discriminate against gays in the provision of adoption services or “Christian” education. But they are doing so in their private capacity and not as state funded employees or agencies.

Nobody is asking the Churches to change their teaching (well actual I am – in my private capacity – as I am entitled, in conscience to do). But that is not the point.

I believe it is absolutely unethical and immoral for any Christian to discriminate against gays and whilst I accept that they can do so in their private capacity as faith communities or faith funded agencies, I absolutely reject that my taxpayers money can be used to fund such activities, and the same goes for the 99% of the electorate who vote for parties which to not support discrimination against gays in the public sphere.

When it comes to public money a political orthodoxy trumps a religious orthodoxy every time – it is a case of Caesar doing as the vast majority of his subjects see fit.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

I disagree with Andrew Sullivan that the State should respect bigotry (in the name of free speech); nor it is a question of religious freedom; it is simply a question of the rights of conscience -- and that is the point on which I am in basic agreement with Sullivan's opinion that this legislation is objectionable.

The rights of conscience were rather powerfully affirmed in the letter of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. The reactions were for the most part based on not reading the letter at all. Here is the central part of the letter:

"Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience. In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk. The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning. On numerous occasions in the past proper consideration has been given to the requirements of consciences... As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration of the best way in which to introduce and administer new protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in England and Wales, we hope you, and cabinet colleagues, will do justice to the interests of the much wider grouping of interests within the nation that will be affected. It is vitally important that... conditions are not inadvertently created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector."

Please note the use of the word "conscience" throughout. Note also the warm attitude toward the Govt's efforts to overcome discrimination against gays. Note again that they do not say they share the Roman Catholic attitude to gay couples adopting, but only that the rights of conscience of the RC agencies should be respected.

[Frank Schnittger]

"If the Church wants to side with bigots against the needs of children, it should be able to do so. It pains me, but it is none of the government's concern."
- Spirit of Vatican II

True, but doesn't that mean that the government should stop funding Church agencies that practice such bigotry, and let them be funded by the Churches themselves?

It all very well expecting the Government and secular society to respect your right to have different religious beliefs, but do we have a right to expect the government to fund our particular doctrines (in Church Schools as well as Church adoption agencies?).

The various gay lobby groups don't expect state funding, do they, even if they can argue that virtually all parties across the political spectrum support them and their agenda?

There is a difference between tolerance and active endorsement and financial support. Political orthodoxy is that all people are equal before the law, the electoral process, and in their rights to hold different beliefs and practice different lifestyles within the limits of the law. The Churches are entitled to beg to differ, but not to funding in support of their politically unorthodox beliefs and practices.

Otherwise will we be seeing the state providing funding for gay schools where children are encouraged to check out the gay lifestyle? I hope not. Some things are best left in the private sphere.

[J Pearce]

"It is not me who would deny a child a stable and loving home; the best chance for the child to find that is with married adoptive parents. Fact."

Best chance, possibly. But it isn't the only chance. But you refuse to accept that. You are so blinded by your obsession with Christian marriage that you refuse to acknowledge that there are equally loving, equally caring, equally emotionally equipped partnerships that could offer a potentially wonderful home environment to a child. But because of your unfettered dogmatic prejudice against any couple who aren't engaged in a Christian marriage arrangement, you would deny these people the same opportunities to adopt as those who have achieved your Holy Grail of Christian marriage.

(As an aside, I find it personally extremely offensive that you have such a sneeringly, dismissive opinion if anyone who doesn't live up to your fantasy marital scenario. It demeans a whole swathe of good, honest, morally upright citizens (including myself) who just don't happen to share your fundamentalist religious outlook. I don't see any Christian goodness in your opinions whatsoever.)

"To deny a child, especially a child deprived in some way, of this bond is downright cruel."

What is this supposed to mean? Are you implying that I would do that? I am arguing the opposite - that a child in care is best served by having the widest pool of potential adopters available. This appears to be your most tawdry attempt at emotional bullying I have yet encountered.

"Don't you DARE to tell me that I don't care about the welfare of children. My whole life has been geared around children."

I would have more confidence in believing you, if you didn't continually push your religious-derived agenda as being the only possible acceptable solution to the problem of placing children with adopters. If you showed a little more compassion and empathy towards those people who could - and would - provide an equally suitable family environment for a child, but who don't share your religious outlook, then your arguments might carry more weight. In lieu of that, I can only surmise this is just another attempt to justify your prejudiced perspective, using your weapon of choice, emotional blackmail.

[K Hutchison]

With all the huge issues facing the world, it is pathetic that western governments are obsessive about bending over backwards to prevent discrimination against gays.This paternalistic cultural vandalism is creating a growing gap between what is preached from the 'wise' who run our countries, and the masses who have far more down-to-earth thoughts on life. The elites should remember that wider the gap, the more the future social disorder.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Andrew Sullivan sees more sides of the story than most commentators:
"Religious Freedom in Britain:
"It just took a hit from well-meaning but misguided attempts to force Catholic adoption agencies to be open to placing needy kids in the homes of adoptive gay couples. It isn't the law yet, and the British parliamentary system means that, for the Tories at least, the vote will be one of conscience. My conscience tells me that denying needy children good and stable homes, just because their new parents will be gay, is morally wrong... but my political principles - specifically my belief in unfettered religious freedom - tell me that the right of religious organizations to practice bigotry and even cruelty in their own affairs is integral to a free society."
[I would add that there is also a MORAL principle at stake -- respect for bona fide conscience stances of individuals and groups, and avoidance of a State monopoly on moral judgement.]
"This dehumanization of gay people is a terrible stain on the Church, but that should be of no business of the government. There are also alternatives. If the Church comes across a child who might be taken care of by an adoptive gay couple, it can still transfer that child to another agency. If I were a member of parliament, I would vote against this bill."
[Sullivan, note, writes as a gay Catholic and an advocate of gay marriage.]
"There are plenty of avenues in Britain for gay couples to do the selfless and admirable job of raising abandoned or orphaned children in need. There's no need to trample religious liberty in the process. If the Church wants to side with bigots against the needs of children, it should be able to do so. It pains me, but it is none of the government's concern."

[Jill]

J Pearce, statistics show that unmarried couples are six and a half times more likely to break up after the birth of a child than married couples. Fact. Homosexual relationships are notoriously short-lived and unstable. Fact. It is not me who would deny a child a stable and loving home; the best chance for the child to find that is with married adoptive parents. Fact.

For God's sake!! I have not worked with the adoption service, but I have seen first-hand how it works; how a lovely family were denied an older, mixed race child with special needs (the most difficult to place) because of the political ideology of some snotty young social workers high on credentials but low on experience - another poor kid denied a loving home.

I have, however, brought up four children over a period of 30 years and have been involved in the running of numerous voluntary organisations with mothers and children, setting up several groups myself which have taken off to such an degree that I have had to extend them to other days, battling and fundraising for facilities and equipment, and making special provision for the immigrant mothers and children in my area beset by loneliness and isolation. Experience, J Pearce, many years of it. There is nothing - nothing - which can replicate the bond between mother and child. To deny a child, especially a child deprived in some way, of this bond is downright cruel.

Don't you DARE to tell me that I don't care about the welfare of children. My whole life has been geared around children.

[Frank Schnittger]

Pope Simon Icke - feel free to exercise your democratic privilege and stand for election at the next election. Just what are you FOR, what would you DO if elected and appointed to high office, and why should people vote for you? What makes you so much a better Christian than Tony Blair? After all, he has only done what Christians have done through the ages - started wars, made lots of pious and pompous statements, told the masses how to live their lives etc... very much in line with Tradition really.

[J Pearce]

"Had that policy been given a few more years, and had that massive increase continued, we would be looking at a very different situation and there would be absolutely no need to place children into proven far less stable relationships.

For far too long applicants were prejudged and excluded from consideration."

Who is doing the pre-judging here, Jill? "far less stable relationships"? This is just your hobby horse about marriage again, isn't it? I think your last post is merely a cynical exercise in using the predicament of children in care, as a platform to air your vile prejudices against those in society who have not engaged in a Christian marriage (which, I would wager, would be rather a lot of people, given the declining interest in religious weddings).

How are you in a position to possibly comment about the suitability of potential adopters? Do you work in adoption? What right or qualification do you have to write off a whole swathe of potentially wonderful, loving, caring adopters, merely because they do not conform to your idealised marriage criteria? None, on each count. Yet you would deny a child in care the potential of a wonderful home, based on what? The strict interpretation of Christian dogma? Where's the "love" in that? Looking at what has happened to children in the care of the Church as a corporate entity, I personally would be extremely wary of placing a child into an orthodox Christian family, given the history of repression and abuse associated with Christians.

The truth is, you show far less concern for the welfare of the children than those you accuse of political manoeuvering, Jill, by elevating your unfeasible, dogmatic religious beliefs as more important than a pragmatic, inclusive and professional approach to adoption.

[Simon Icke]

The new Government imorality a few years from now?

THE IDEAL LIBERAL ATHEISTIC WORLD IS COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU SOON:

Indeed why not let the secularist/ atheistic liberals have a free rein for a year: drugs given out to primary school kids, lower the age of consent to 5 year olds, condoms in chewing gum packets, abortion on demand, ban Christianity from all our institutions, Peter Thatchell and the militant gay rights movement to form a new government, children to be taught there is no such thing as wrong; everything is relative, liberal thought police to control peoples thinking and free speech.
Compulsory ID cards and DNA records for everyone, everyone to log into their home computer before starting the day to tell the new government stazis what they plan to do that day, any dissenters to be rounded up and thrown into the new anti- secularist/ atheistic liberal government training camps for reconditioning. And so on and so on, am I having a nightmare or is this George Orwells 1984 arriving a bit later than forecast!

[Jill]

Frank, you say 'The problem is that others (adoption agencies) have other agendas, and want to queer the pitch by excluding some applicants for adoption from consideration. No prospective parents have a “right” to be chosen as suitable for adoption, but neither should any organisation in receipt of state funds seek to claim the right to prejudge some applicants and exclude them from consideration.'

I do so agree, Frank. I have posted on another thread that until Tony Blair ordered adoption agencies to get more children out of care and into families, a mere 10 per cent of potential adopters were successful. Following that edict, prior to December 2005 (when the new law took effect allowing unmarried couples and homosexual couples to adopt) 1,000 more children were adopted than in 1999-2000 - a 38% increase. Had that policy been given a few more years, and had that massive increase continued, we would be looking at a very different situation and there would be absolutely no need to place children into proven far less stable relationships.

For far too long applicants were prejudged and excluded from consideration.

This is a cynical political manoeuvre, and has absolutely no concern for the children involved. I think it dangerously naïve to assume that gay couples, or for that matter unwed couples, will be the last choice of the PC brigade in the Social Services once the ‘discrimination’ mafia start their tactics.

As for the Bishop of Durham’s outburst, it is a bit late in the day for the Bishops to wake up now after decades of failing to stand up for marriage.

[Pete]

This is simply a case of the modern state refusing to respect anyone's conscience; and demanding the destruction of all ties between people save those imposed by the state.

I hope that the RC Church in Britain has the courage to stand up for itself.

[Simon Icke]

Tony Blair caves in to the gay lobby... what a surprise, let's examine his moral record a moment........

If Tony Blair is a Christian then I am the Pope!

He has led a Government that has shown no respect whatsoever for Christian values, not once in 9 yrs of government!

When it comes to any moral issues like reducing or reviewing outdated abortion laws he sits on the fence or even worse votes with the secularist/ atheist view.

His Government has used political correctness to try and control society..

His Government introduced multiculturalism that has divided a nation and created religious and cultural ghettos.

his Government have destroyed the union and divided the nation

His Government have led us into several wars that had nothing to do with us and led to the slaughter of 100,000s of innocent civilians

His Government have introduced at least 8 new gay rights laws and repeatedly bowed down to the gay militant gay rights lobby, even if it means riding roughshod over the beliefs and values of faith communities and the silent majority to appease them....

His Government have done nothing to protect Asian British women from violent abuse forced marriages and honour killings and the like, they have consistently turned a blind eye to this known problem. Just look at The Scotsman website for the horrific facts on Equal Rights for Asian women.....
His Government have been the most arrogant government in history completely ingoring public opinion and the majority view...

This Government have put new labour cronies in the House of Lords, not on merit but how much they donated to the party!

His Government have controlled the nation with sleaze and spin, shamelessly telling one untruth after another!

His Government will go down in history as the most atheistic/ secularist liberal Government ever..

His Government did absolutely nothing to support traditional family values, in fact they did everything they could to undermine the family. especially the ones with shock horror a mother and father, married and living together.....

Blair might claim to be religious but he is certainly not a Christian on the evidence I can see.

He will be judged by his actions not his glib claims.

He and his Government have consistently behaved like trendy secularist/ atheistic fascist the kind quite a number of you should identify with...

In my opinion BLAIR IS CERTAINLY NOT A CHRISTIAN! One day when he meets his maker..... God will say 'I don't know you'!

My view on Tony Blair is good riddance to bad rubbish your legacy is that you brought far more harm than good to the British Nation and its society......

If I ever meet Tony Blair... I would say to him... I have no respect for you, as respect must be earned......may God forgive you for what you and your Government have done to our once great nation......

[Frank Schnittger]

"This discussion keeps drifting off into a handful of cases where individuals have let the Church down. All this whilst central government itself is currently and daily embroiled in all kinds of corruption and incompetence. - Simon

The main problem with the Church was not that a relatively small proportion of priests let the Church down and abused children, but that the hierarchy were aware of this, almost to a man, and did nothing until forced to do so by secular society and public outrage.

Many of those Bishops are still in office. At least when the Government blunders, the people have a remedy at the next election. Alan, Archbishop Conti and others can always vote against Labour.

What could the faithful do when their Bishops connived with the cover up of child sex abuse? Just recently it took public outrage to prevent the installation of an Archbishop of Warsaw who had collaborated with the communist authorities against his own Church in order to further his career.

It seems there is more accountability in civil society than there is in the Churches. Those religious who seek to use the privileges of democracy and accountability in civil society should learn to practice them in their own sphere before they cast their stones at the Government and secular society.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"I am deeply saddened by the fact that the Church seems unable to respond to a serious move towards anti-discrimination other than by the sort of saloon bar rant we've just heard from the Bishop of Durham. I am deeply embarrassed to be a member of the Church of England,"

Well, Wright does rant a bit, but the following makes sense to me: “What we'd most want to do is to disentangle two things. There's a particular issue on which the Catholic church has taken a stand, as other Christians have; and there's a general issue about the rights of the state and the rights of conscience especially in voluntary bodies. Now that second question is one that, I think, is by no means restricted to this issue. And I think it's not going to go away, so I would like to see some more serious debate now about that particular question – what are the limits, if there are limits, to the State's power to control and determine the actions of voluntary bodies within it, in pursuit of what are quite proper goals of non-discrimination.” (Abp Williams)

As to the Nazi analogy, let's remember how euthanasia and eugenics programmes were imposed by a righteous Government back then, with a similar sense of their own overriding moral authority as the clusterbombing Blair Cabinet are now showing.

"As for the Catholics, it ill behoves an organisation that for decades facilitated by cover up the paedophilic activities of some priests to pretend that this is all about the interests of children." The implication of this kind of argument could be that the Church must shut up about everything. Since the Blair Government has a record of dastardly crimes on its escutcheon (I was about to say its conscience), perhaps it should stop talking about morality as well. Who will be left to speak then?

[Alan Marsh]

So, Tom Wright is "everything Mike Homfray dislikes about the Church". He must be wrong, then.

[Canon Tomás Kennedy]

I picked your post up via Virtue Online. Thank you for your Blog. I find it very informative.

It seems to me that in civil society elected governments have to act impartially when it comes to policy and cannot, should not make any exceptions for churches.

Our job in the churches is to be salt, to influence the thinking in civil society. That most likely will lead to increasing conflict between the church and state as we are moving more and more into a post-Christian era in Europe.

Tomás+

[simon]

I originally supported the SORN legislation in the way it was implemented in Northern Ireland, and thought that Christians were making a big noise over very little. But it has now gone a step too far in the way its being implemented here, and I no longer trust the governments intentions. They are using it to divert attention from what's happening at the home office and the fact they replaced the ancient system of the second house with one that earns their party cash.

This discussion keeps drifting off into a handful of cases where individuals have let the Church down. All this whilst central government itself is currently and daily embroiled in all kinds of corruption and incompetence.

No one has claimed that the Catholic adoption agencies do anything other than an excellent job. And the nail in the coffin of all the arguments in support of this law, is that the Catholic agencies currently accept older adoptees that are instantly ruled out by many secular adoption agencies in their selection process. That's ageist discrimination, discrimination on grounds that the prospective adoptees can do nothing about.

There is no law covering that and the government has no plans to introduce a law dealing with it. If you can answer why that is the case, you can see how silly this all is. And if you're a cynic and think this government would ever do something to take the heat off its own incompetence, its possibly more sinister than silly.

QED

[Scott Whitfield]

Well, I guess we'll soon see secular adoption agencies screening out Catholic couples as unsuitable given their likelihood to pass onto the children unacceptable values.

[Martin B]

Maybe it would be worth while finding out what other changes in the last 2,000 years the Bishop of Durham disapproves of.
Is he in favour of stoning adulterers?
I believe that blasphemers were burned rather than stoned; should we go back to that too?
Things have moved on and I would have thought that any sensible organisation would be very ashamed to admit that their moral code was 2,000 years old and they had no intention of updating it!

[DaveG]

So - The agencies should resign now from involvement with adoptions and let the big shots handle it themsleves. They will be back soon enough looking for help.

[Mike Homfray]

Also, it should be pointed out that no-one is telling the Catholics anything about their 'teaching' which they are entitled to hold - just how they cannot practice discrimination against gay and lesbian people outside the boundaries of the Church

And the same is true for the CofE as much as Wright would love it not to be so. The Church has presented itself as truly squalid - I am relieved to no longer be a member and no longer have to defend its risible stances or people like Wright and Williams.

I sincerely think we would be a better country without the Church as it now stands. If only we could have ECUSA here!

[Mike Homfray]

I think its a reasonable decision, although part of me thinks there should have been no 'waiting time' and the Catholic Church an unfit agency to have any contact with children in any case

As for Wright, well, since when did an overrated conservative theologian have anything to offer anyone? If its making someone like him angry, then it definitely must be on the right track - for he is everything I dislike about the Church. A conservative who doesn't even have the courage to admit to it - we really would be so much better off without him and his brand of 'religion'

[Frank Schnittger]

Simon - don't forget the Nazis only ever managed to achieve 43% of the vote after the Reichstag fire caused public panic and enabled them to suppress the communist party. They were only able pass the Enabling Act - which set up their dictatorship with the support of the Catholic Centre party. This enabled them to suppress the Social Democrats and pass laws without the approval of parliament.

Sometimes religious people do not have a monopoly on conscience, or on common sense!

[Frank Schnittger]

David Keen - you are quite right to remind us that there are no absolutes, and that two principles (no discrimination and the welfare of children), whilst laudable in themselves, may on occasion conflict. That is why only the professionals dealing with a particular adoption can ensure that what is being done is in the best interests of the child.

And Stuart is right to remind us that the number of occasions where a same sex adoption is the best option is likely to be very small.

If people were really concerned with the best interests of the child, then the legislation wouldn’t matter a jot. Adoption agencies would simply make the best decision possible in the interests of the child. They would vet all applicants for adoption and choose the best parents in the best interests of a particular child based on professional guidelines and evidence based scientific research. That is the only principle that should apply.

The problem is that others have other agendas, and want to queer the pitch by excluding some applicants for adoption from consideration. No prospective parents have a “right” to be chosen as suitable for adoption, but neither should any organisation in receipt of state funds seek to claim the right to prejudge some applicants and exclude them from consideration.

Each child, and each prospective adoptive parent, deserves to be treated with respect and judged on their individual merits. That is just simple humanity and good professional practice – something which seems to be beyond our Church leaders.

[simon]

Frank

I wasn't using the smoking ban as some kind of victimisation argument - more a moral comparison. Smokers may have more options in giving up - but after these legislation changes they will never be able to have a cigarette in a restaurant. Gay people will still be able to adopt as just as they could before.

And neither was I using the "First they came..." as a moral comparison with the Nazi's. But remember that most of what the Nazis stood for originally was supported as common sense by a bigger portion of the well educated German population than voted for Labour at the last election!

[Alan Marsh]

Another nail in the coffin for any electoral chances Labour may have had at the next election. Too busy kowtowing to the NSS to realise how many votes it owes to Christians. Not mine any longer.

[Stuart]

Can those who say that the new law is being applied in the interests of the children say how many extra children will be adopted as a result of it?

Can anyone say how many children will fail to be adopted if exemptions to the law are allowed?

Can anyone say that the universal application of this law has anything to do with the welfare of children at all?

[Frank Schnittger]

Simon - Pastor Martin Niemöller quotation must be the most over-used and balderdised text ever to appear on these pages. To compare even the worst excesses of New Labour with Nazism is a little sad and does little for historical perspective and the many victims of Nazism.

Your latest excuse for victim hood is the smoking ban. Can you find no better cause for martyrdom? We in Ireland have lived with, and enjoyed the smoking ban for a couple of years now. It is one of the most popular pieces of legislation ever!

Non-smokers like myself can now once again go back into pubs and restaurants and enjoy ourselves in a clean environment. Those who smoke do so outside in the beer gardens or outdoor or sheltered seating often provided. Even a majority of smokers support the legislation.

I'm afraid your post exemplifies the paranoia and hysteria of much of the opposition to the SORs and partly explains why it has been so ineffective. "Think not of what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!"

[Eileen the Episcopali-fem]

I'm American, so I'm watching this from afar, but I have to say, I agree with Malcom.

If the Catholic agencies want to be discriminatory, then do it on their own dollars. If they want/need public funding, they'll need to comply.

They won't be closing any adoptions agencies - that's just words blowing hard on the wind.

They'll adjust. That's the way of things. Life goes on.

[Roger G. Friendship]

Did anyone else listen to the Cardinal on Radio 4's 'Today' programme this morning? In answer to a question he said that the RC Church does not object to homosexuals but believes the only proper way for a child to be brought up is in a family where theere is a mother and a father. Did I hear correctly? If so, isn't this a (more than subtle) shift in his argument?

[David Keen]

Tony Blair is articulating two fundamental principles without ever asking if they come into conflict:
1. The welfare of children
2. No discrimination (= exactly the same rights for gays as for heterosexuals)

but what if being raised by 2 parents of the same sex isn't as good for child development as being raised by a male and female parent? Do we know? Is there any evidence that applying 'anti-discrimination' principles here is also in the best interests of children? Or is the government flying blind, hoping that two of its basic ideals don't happen to clash with each other?

[Malcolm Bowden]

I am deeply saddened by the fact that the Church seems unable to respond to a serious move towards anti-discrimination other than by the sort of saloon bar rant we've just heard from the Bishop of Durham. I am deeply embarrassed to be a member of the Church of England, and as for the Catholics, it ill behoves an organisation that for decades facilitated by cover up the paedophilic activities of some priests to pretend that this is all about the interests of children. Pull the other one, Cormac!!

[simon]

First they came ... the revised and less flowing version :)

First they came for the life Peers, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a peer, and didn't understand the need for independent checks on the government.

Then they came for the Foxhunters, and I didn’t speak up,
because hunting was not my tradition,
and I assumed there must be a better solution.

Then they came for the Smokers, and I didn’t speak up,
because I didn't smoke,
and thought the governments intentions were good.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't even a Christian,
and didn't understand their view.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me,
and what was important to me.

[simon]

From summer this year I won't even be able to have a cigarette after my meal in a restaurant. In every sense of the way the word is being used in this discussion on adoption, I'm discriminated against by this loony un-British government. Yet parents are allowed to take their children to Macdonald's and stuff them full of trans fatty acids, then take them home and fill their unventilated houses with cigarette smoke. Surely the government does not have enough control of things here ? We should all surely have CCTV in our houses - and legislation and a government department should be created to regulate what we do in our houses!

All the major parties have now been forced into kowtowing to the Marxist (in action rather than on paper), anti-personal-freedom and holier-than-thou philosophy that the public is being indoctrinated into by the Guardian and the BBC. Though I never would have believed it a while back, I (a liberal in the traditional sense of the word, and someone fairly positive about many aspects of Europe) am forced into the position where the only party I can vote for without feeling I am betraying the values my grandfather fought for at El Alamein, is the UK Independence Party. All the others are complete fruitcakes following a project that has good intentions but only the vaguest clue about what the end result will be. Its like all these parents that think that setting firm boundaries of discipline for children is something designed to make the parents life easier - and that they are being much 'nicer' parents by letting them get away with as much as they can bare. The reform of the House of Lords was far better thought out than the general 'project'!

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. And we won't even be able to have a fag after our meal once we reach the Guardians holy land!

[john gregory Flinn]

Dear Ms Gledhill, I think one of the links you may include is Lord Rees-Mogg' excellent article yesterday, 29th January - "Now, all our English liberties are becoming orphans".

There is something unsettling about a democracy where 'lets wait and see how it turns out', or where 'the timing of letters can win or lose the argument', may be maxims for governance.

Something is happening within New Labour that reminds me of the old east European regimes.
New oligarchies are developing around new cliques which, like the old oligarchs, tend to disregard opinions and sentiments which do not fit their 'view' - or perhaps I can say 'polemic'.

[John Bartlett]

The 21 months is quite possibly death by a thousand cuts to the Catholic Adoption Agencies. In the climate of uncertainty, those staff able to move to other employment will do so and the agencies will be unable to recruit to fill the gaps. This will need resolution within a much shorter timescale if the agencies are not to simply implode.

[Richard]

My greatest fear is that some from the militant 'pro-gay' lobby will deliberately try and demonise Christians of a traditional/biblical persuasion by attempting to provoke confrontations armed with the weapons that these latest regulations gives them. I sincerely hope that this will not be so. Nevertheless the government did not have to introduce these laws, since most non-Catholic adoption agencies do not discriminate at the present time. I am at one with Bishop Tom Wright when he accuses the government of attempting to legislate for morality. By so doing the legislature is trying dictate terms to those in public life and service as regards the limits of their Christian conscience. It has recently become clear that a traditionally minded Christian cannot be a European Commissioner. It will be a black day when such a restriction will dictate who can serve in the British Cabinet.
As long as this government allows itself to be a hostage to the very strong gay lobby in public life (while still representing a tiny minority of the population as a whole) then this sort of thing is bound to happen.

[David Gould]

You really ought to mention that Dr Evan Harris, as well as being an MP, is a mouth piece for the secularist movement and indeed a vice-president of the National Secular Society. His agenda is political but it is also deeply anti-Christian and anti-religious. I feel that that agenda motivates him more than any 'equality agenda'.

Also the quote I remember from this whole debate was by Michael Portillo who said that in terms of religious excemptions the government would prefer to take on the church now rather than muslims later. I agree.

[Robert Ian Williams]

As A Catholic I would like to know what type of single homosexual the Catholic Agencies have been allowing to adopt.
There is a key distinction made by the Catholic Church as regards a celibate person endeavouring to live the Church's teaching and a sexually active person who has adopted a gay persona.

Furthermore the Cardinals letter to Blair and the Cabinet says Catholic agencies will sign-post Gay couples to other agencies. this contradictas Catholic teaching in the Cathechism on aiding others in sin . See section 1868.

I have written to the Cardinal on this issue. There seems to be a divirgence with Rome, which Ben Bradshaw rightly calls muddled.

[kieran crichton]

This all makes one wonder why Catholic adoption agencies couldn't simply carry on a policy that has been mentioned, albeit obliquely, in some of the coverage of this issue. How hard could it really be for someone at the front desk to refer a same-sex couple to a state-based adoption agency? Or is it now officially Church policy that openly gay people (especially in couples!) should be abused on approach to any rampart of the Catholic citadel?

Given the level of assessment that prospective adoptive parents go through in order to be considered as candidates for adoption, isn't is a bit frivolous to suggest that gay couples would be doing it JUST because they could? Martin Reynolds has written elsewhere of his experience; it hardly seems like he took on adoption to prove a point. Indeed, given the damage recent events have done to his partner's faith, I would say the Catholic hierarchy have that shoe firmly on their foot.

As for all the hysteria over other issues - basically fears that the firmament will crash if gay people are treated in the same way as anyone else - I would say it reflects wishful thinking more than any likely real-life scenario. I really admire the active imagination of some social conservatives, who have yet to show how traditional family values prevent anyone from turning out gay. Perhaps it's arguable that these values (whatever they are) are likely to be a contributing factor. Recent history makes Catholic teaching in this area seem rather difficult to accept at face value.

In any event, it appears that this is a decision that Tony Blair can afford - after all, he won't be at Number 10 much longer, will he?

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works."

Gay civil unions and gay adoption do indeed constitute a new morality. It may be a correct morality, but it is certainly new. Remember Clause 28? Or the criminalization of homosexual behaviour in Britain until 1967, in Northern Ireland until the 1970s and in the Republic of Ireland until 1993?

"At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies - and I haven't even mentioned Iraq - the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable."

I agree -- the Blair Government is possibly the most morally footless in the history of Britain -- indeed, offhand can you think of any Government that has done so much evil in so little time? (I think of Iraq and the rendition flights, but also of a corruption of democracy.)

"When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then."

I see nothing terribly wrong with gay couples adopting, but I do think the rights of conscience on this matter are a paramount consideration. The Government, so unconscionable on so many fronts, are not treating the rights of conscience with sufficient respect here.

[Craig Nelson]

Why doesn't Tom Wright just join the Tory party and have done?

[Christopher]

Frank

When bishops shoot from the hip it is particularly unfortunate. They don't just damage their own credibility, showing how partisan they really are, but they damage their cause. Poor old Murphy-O'Connor did this with his ill-judged letter which brought everything to a head and probably lost him any opt-out that Ruth Kelly and Tony Blair may have been working towards. Now Tom Wright has shown he is not only unpredictable (in his recent denunciation of his friends) but his irrascible defence of the catholic 'position' - 2000 years of discrimination, is that? - looks like knee-jerk anti-Blairism. When all these people keep saying the children are the only ones that matter in all this they are right so far as that goes, but the principlse of fairness and justice not to dismiss prospective adoptive parents from the wider pool of suitable adopters prima facie is putting the children's interests first.

Ruth, I too was tremendously moved by Andrew Pierce's article, and Frank, I think I agree with you about the ideal for most children but sometimes and in some cases the ideal solution for children in general is not the best fit for a given child in his particular needs. I earnestly hope the bishops will use the 21 months wisely and come to realise after taking the opportunity to meet with lots of adoptive parents of all sexualities and their children that a dogmatic refusal to consider same-sex couples in order to uphold an ideal of marriage doesn't actually put a vulnerable child's interests first, if it means he would be left behind languishing in an orphanage, deprived of the opportunity of a loving family however imperfect that might be from the church's ideal perspective. It is time now for some pastoral leadership from the bishops - helping real children in real life situations. The consciences of the bishops may then become informed - and that's what the church hopes for for everyone, an informed conscience.

[Angry canidate]

http://www.stuartcarnie.com/page6.html

Do you really know these people.

[Roger G. Friendship]

I find the notion disturbing that an unelected) group of bishops who have no accountabiity to the church believe that an ethic of 'conscientious' discrimination is, somehow, more consistant with the Christian faith than the 'consciencious' belief in equality enacted by a democratically elected Govrenment.

[Tom Allen]

The delay may allow several things to happen at a practical level which have not been possible during the short consultation period.
1. It will become clearer what the "practice" of the Catholic agencies has actually been rather than what the Archbishop and others say it is. It is important to remember that there is not one agency but several around the country with differentr relationships with other agencies and professionals.
2 It should become clearer what the real theology power-source of the opposition to SOR really is - is it genuinely British based or is it Vatican orginated. The American experience where liberal Diocese's such as Boston were forced to close by Vatican pressure suggests where the power lies.
3 Is it's opposition to unmarried (in Catholic understanding) parents or to gay parents - ie have some individual agencies placed with gay single parents or to unmarried heterosexual partners as has been suggested.
4 Are the staff more liberal than the Bishops and trustees as is suggested by two senior Catholic social workers that I know and will they pressure for the work to be moved (with the staff)to other Christian agencies such as the Children's Society - assuming that a change of policy cannot be agreed.
5. Has the Catholic hierachy failed to keep up with good practice within the profession in the same way that it was light-years behind in child protection matters - is there grounds for some catching up here?
6. Will the source of really high quality parents dry up with potential adopters seeking children through other agencies given that it can take longer than two years to get to a Panel?
These kind of questions make predictions of outcomes very hard to call at the moment.
I personally am pleased that the Government has stood up for what it believes in , while being pragmatic enough timewise ( the short consultation time scale was a major mistake) to allow for other possibilities.

Hopefully in turn the Church leaders will learn that they cannot just stamp their feet and expect to get what they want - or use the children or withdrawal of the service as blackmail for their principles which is how it has "sounded" to me - intentionally or otherwise. There has been too much "Christendom" grand-standing for my liking.

[Margaret G]

Tony Blair said "I start from a very firm foundation: there is no place in our society for discrimination." ... except for discrimination against Catholics, Muslims and other faith groups that hold to the traditional teaching on gay issues.

[Shaun]

Well, thank God for Tom Wright - Nathan to Tony's King David.

And anyone who assumes that all this will go away given 18 months doesn't begin to understand the situation.

[Frank Schnittger]

A classic political fudge, or else a cooling off period to allow the more hysterical hyperbola to subside?

In two years time the more general effects of the SORs will become clearer. We will know whether the doomsday scenarios for Christian B&B owners, Parish Hall committees, and the teaching of traditional "family values" in Christian Schools are all so much hot air, or based in actual factual practical difficulties.

It is interesting that although there is a lot of lip service paid to the best interests of children, the objections to same-sex couple adoptions are based on the grounds of the religious conscience of the service providers rather than on any scientific evidence as to whether same sex couple adoptions have statistically better or worse outcomes than heterosexual ones.

On balance I would always favour adoption by hetero-couples where suitable couples are available especially where there are other children in the family. We forget, sometimes, how much child rearing and support is provided by siblings rather than directly by parents. Also no couple has an absolute right to have children – whether hetero or same sex.

However, as a society, we have a responsibility to provide the best possible environment for children who have already been failed by their natural parents. If the best option available for them is a same sex adoption, then so be it.

Durham’s vented spleen is particularly unfortunate: “the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.”

Firstly, no one is trying to invent a new morality. The notion of non-discrimination against citizens on a variety of grounds is well established and a part of Christian morality itself.

Secondly, the record of the Catholic Church in dealing with child sex abuse is so appalling that any suggestion that it should be allowed to operate above the law that applies to everyone else is singularly unfortunate.

The arrogance, I’m afraid, is entirely on the side of those who have shown they were not worthy of the exalted place they once had in our society.

Whatever the merits of different adoption practices, guidelines, and procedures – and there is genuine room for concern and debate here – one thing is clear: Once the Churches made this a test of political muscle, they had to be resisted.

Our freedom from religious oppression is too precious to allow the bigots, theocrats, and zealots back into power by the back door using their alleged concern for abused and abandoned children as the lever back into our collective conscience.

For all the failings of secular democratic government, we don’t want to go back to the witch burners and their spiritual heirs.