They blinked

Good post, I've taken the liberty of copying your quote from the Pontiff and including it in a post on my own blog. Credit was naturally given to you for the quote (CPO's have to be straightup with one another).

Perhaps someone should remind them they are the Church in England, not the church of England.

"Sexual Orientation Regulations..." Positively Orwellian.

Isn't it better that a child have a home with an imperfect union, than no home at all. It is easy to take a stand when the individual taking it suffers alone. If the Church stops assisting in adoptions due to the law, the children suffer. Perhaps they suffer being brought up in homosexual home. Do they suffer more than if they had no home at all? I'd rather see a child in a loving and imperfect home than grouped in some orphanage like setting. I'd rather see the Church working with homosexuals than opting out of the lives of these children.

Isn't it better that a child have a home with an imperfect union, than no home at all. It is easy to take a stand when the individual taking it suffers alone

Hi Helen, Good question. I always ask myself these questions by trading around the terms. For example, "Isn't a home with two alcoholics, an imperfect home, better than no home"?

You can continue with whatever permutations you care to use but the point is that moving children to homes where the adoptors have known mental disease greatly affecting their ability to make good moral choices for the children is not kindness. Additionally, it is not "gay bashing" to point out the largely homosexual focus of the child molesters. Adopting children into this environment is not improving their lives but throwing them to the wolves.

It is not either or. There are long waits for adoption and no need to resort to this situation. Children deserve a mother and a father and
bringing them up in a disordered relationship does violence to children as Ratzinger wrote. While certainly there are problems with divorce among the homosexual community long term relationships are rare and certainly not a atmosphere to raise children.

Homosexual unions are not just imperfect, they are sinful.

Dawn Stefanowicz who grew up in such a household tells her story.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4731

She has written a book on the subject and helps others who have suffered under these circumstances.
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/

The Church has been explicit on the gee-isn't-it-better-to-have-a-home? argument:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Full doc here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Bwah! I missed that last part where Jeff quotes the very same thing. oops! Oh well, it bears repeating as it seems the point was missed.

When is an "agency" not an agency? I wonder if (or how) it might be possible for married parents who wish to adopt to steer around this situation. Is it possible to adopt without an agency? Maybe that's what communities that are oppressed by "sexual orientation regulations" need to study while they work to overturn the regulations.
Certainly, if Catholic adoption agencies were to close, that would send the message that we will not promote the abuse of orphans. The difficulty lies in providing that safety net for the orphans.
As it is, this situation seems criminal as well as immoral. It's like being told that unless we allow poison to be mixed into the food of random orphans, the orphans will be starved to death. We, even those of us who are not directly affected today, are being coerced into choosing evil.

Helen, Great question. Maybe I can offer a response that isn't so issue-based. This issue is an emotional one, and sometimes difficult to talk about.

As Catholics, we are big believers that specific laws and regulations should be based on general principles. In other words, we should figure out our principles than apply them in the world.

I think most people can agree on that point. So, as a general principle, we should never do evil so that good may come of it. Even if it's a REALLY great good and a REALLY small evil.

A child has a right to be raised in a proper two-parent household, we should never violate that right. Violating that right would be evil. We shouldn't even violate that right for some REALLY great good.

Placing a child in a homosexual household violates the right of the child to be raised in a proper two-parent household. Does some good come out of that? Probably. BUT, we must do evil in the process. And remember, our principle is "Do no evil." Therefore, we should not place children in homosexual household.

SO, if the Church is faced between placing children in homosexual households (an evil action), or not placing children in homosexual households (a neutral or good action), the Church should ALWAYS chose to not place children in homosexual households. If the law is structured so that the Church will not be permitted to place children at all, then the Church should refuse to place children. Remember, we don't want to do evil.

Some would say, "But what about the evil of NOT placing all the other children in normal homes?" Fair enough question. But the primary issues is that the state is trying to force the Church to do something evil. The Church is refusing evil.

What if the state had a statue of Caesar, and the Church could only run an adoption agency if the head of the adoption agency worshiped the statue and offered a pinch of incense to Caesar, in the name of the Church? Obviously the Church should refuse to run an adoption agency because doing so would require violating the principle of... do no evil.

It's all about following first principles. And the Church in England placing children in homosexual homes is the equivalent of offering a pinch of incense to Caesar.

Curt Jester said:

"Remind me again why we have martyrs in the Church? I guess caving to an unjust law is quite acceptable, hey what was St. Thomas More thinking?"

RED

Vestments of red,
Altar cloth too,
Martyrs who bled,
Did this for you.

Gold Tabernacles,
Veiled in red's hue,
Martyrs in shackles,
Hung for this view.

Red mums full bloomed,
In water and brass,
Martyrs consumed,
Burned for this Mass.

Red rays of sun,
Rose-streak the nave,
Their suf'ring done,
Now, red, we must crave!

I read elsewhere that the bishops were going to fight this. What happened?

Anybody got the Cardinal's email address? Time to make a stink.

This argument kind of reminds me of the pro-stemcell-research folks' argument.

It also reminds me of a certain pharisee's argument that a greater good would come about with the crucifixion of just one Man.

Sounds like the bishops of England need a swift kick in the ... .

Martin successfully cut through the emotionalist "lesser of two evils" argument. A same gender "home" is no home at all.

By caving in, the bishops are giving tacit approval to gay unions.

The English bishops should be very careful. Who do you think the child and/or "parents" will come after (sue) if something goes horribly wrong? And when this tragic social experiment goes horribly wrong, there most certainly will be h*ll to pay. Consider for a moment the devastating effects on the aboriginal populations of Canada created by the government mandated residential school program. Various religious communities have been held complicit with the government for this failed social experiment.

The money is not the issue, or it shouldn't be. The Church should continue on with business as usual and refuse to comply with the government. If necessary, the Church should litigate to insist on autonomy. "But litigation will cost so much, and take money away from supporting the children", you might say. If you think it's going to cost a lot now, just wait.

Any contact with Cardinal Murphy O'Conner will in all probability be intercepted by his secratory and trashed. Best write to Catholic Herald newspaper at editorial@catholicherald.co.uk to express opposition to this satanic proposal.

Per pro. St. Thomas More

Peter Devine
Co. Durham
England.

It won't be long before some church somewhere gets sued for declining to host a gay "wedding."

As I read the story, they seemed to say that they will not turn away homosexual couples, but that the process of adoption is far longer than a first visit. Homosexual couples will still prove incapable for other reasons than being homosexual, seems to be their hope.

Can't wait for the news story when the first homosexual couple is successful in taking a child away from them.

Will they let Gene V. Robinson have a little boy to keep all for himself?

Didn't something similar happen in Connecticut over the Morning After Pill in Catholic hospitals? The bishops put out faithful and courageous statements, some of the laity rally behind them and a few politicians come on board. Then the bishop's support disappears.

Reminds me of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. Though I'm guessing that this failure is a case of episcopal weakness rather than malice. I think it's time again for me to go re-read Jeff's entry about the Episcopacy game. Maybe I should re-read that thing every month...

Wouldn't the Pope be able to stifle this immediately?

WWTBS?

(What would Thomas Becket say?)

WWTMS?

(What would Thomas More say?)
Methinks he might see a parallel with the bishops of his day accepting the headship of King Henry VIII "so far as the law of Christ allows." When the King eventually disallowed the exception's force, there was only one Bishop, John Fisher, with the fortitude to suffer martyrdom.

WWJFS?

Isn't it better that a child have a home with an imperfect union, than no home at all.

So you want to experiment on the child's psyche to find out? And of course you're not the one who'll suffer. Take an already mixed up/confused child and place them in a situation that in itself is confusing and years later there'll be a whole new series for discussion on Oprah where one regularly sees the damage from all the previous "what harm could it do" cases.

And the narcissists who so badly wish to help children will go so far as to fight to close down a good agency that would help hundreds if not thousands of children and adults in order to demand their own "special needs".

Is the Church already forgetting all those previous suggestions by the "knowledgeable" experts in the field of psychology re: just who is okay and who just might need a leetle more therapy in those cases of relationships with "needy children"? They have the statistics and bankrupt dioceses but will still take more risks?

Sadly, this agency was already placing children with unmarried couples as well as single people (don't ask; don't tell basis) long before the Government passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations (which applies to the provision of goods and services interestingly).

Sadly, this agency was already placing children with unmarried couples as well as single people (don't ask; don't tell basis) long before the Government passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations (which applies to the provision of goods and services interestingly).

St. John Fisher was not the only Bishop to die for the Catholic faith in England. There are 12 more Bishops who suffered starvation and torture and died in prison for the Faith under Elizabeth I. What would they have to say about the state of the Church in England today?