London, Jul. 28, 2008 (CNA\/CWNews.com)
\n– The largest Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales has decided
\nto implement an adoption policy that does not rule out same-sex couples
\nin the face of new laws that forbid such screening. The change in its
\nadoption policy was made with the full support of the bishops who
\noversee the agency.<\/p>\n
The decision, made by the Catholic Children’s Society of Arundel and
\nBrighton, Portsmouth and Southwark (A&BSP) means the society
\nwill not turn away any homosexual couples who present themselves as
\npotential adopters.<\/p>\n
Terry Connor, chief executive of the society, explained to The Universe
\nthat any changes would not start until January and were a direct result
\nof the recent Sexual Orientation Regulations which enforced “rights”
\nfor same sex couples who wish to adopt.<\/p>\n
The move will undoubtedly be seen as controversial in some quarters. In
\nJanuary 2007, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wrote to the-then Prime
\nMinister Tony Blair suggesting that Catholic adoption agencies in
\nEngland and Wales would be forced to close down if they were not
\nallowed to opt out of new gay rights laws, which he said contradicted
\nCatholic teaching.<\/p>\n
The cardinal said forcing people to act against their consciences would
\nmean discrimination on the grounds of belief, adding that it would be
\nan “unnecessary tragedy” if Catholic agencies were forced to
\nclose. <\/p>\n
Remind me again why we have martyrs in the
\nChurch? I guess
\ncaving to an unjust law is quite acceptable, hey what was St. Thomas
\nMore thinking?<\/p>\n
So much for what then-Cardinal Ratzinger As experience has shown, the absence of
\nwrote in
\nLegal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons<\/a><\/p>\n
\nsexual complementarity in these
\nunions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who
\nwould be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of
\nthe experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to
\nbe adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing
\nviolence to these children, in the sense that their condition of
\ndependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not
\nconducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and
\nin open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United
\nNations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests
\nof the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the
\nparamount consideration in every case.<\/p>\n