Since when did the rights of homosexuals become greater than the right of a child to be brought up in the natural environment of a father and mother?
The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and other Church leaders have repeatedly appealed, throughout their dispute with the government, to the rights of conscience. This argument, however, has nothing to do with conscience but with Church authority. Since the Second Vatican Council tried to introduce the individual conscience into moral consideration, the campaign of the previous and present Popes has been to eliminate conscience from Catholic discussion, and assert the absolute authority of official Church teaching. Many individual Catholics, including priests and nuns, are conscientiously convinced that homosexuality is not wrong. The same may apply to many of those working in Catholic adoption agencies, but they would be afraid to speak out in this debate for fear of losing their jobs. The tendency in the Church is towards complete intolerance of dissent, so that, for instance, the previous Pope forbade even discussion of the issue of women priests. This is not, therefore, a discussion about secular law versus religious conscience, but British moral consensus expressed in parliament versus the implcable hatred of the last two Popes, and their hierarchical appointees in this country, towards gay people and their attainment of civil rights.(the writer of this comment is an openly gay Liberal Rabbi)
I love these comments of mother and father enviroment. Where I live we have kids hanging around the streets well in to the small hours. Drug taking, under age drinking, vandlism. All from these loving Mother and father households. News flash, they dont all work. Every sort of enviroment can good and bad. Its up to how much effort you put in to the child and how you teach it love, respect and tolerance. Be it a gay or straight household.
“Since when did the rights of homosexuals become greater than the right of a child to be brought up in the natural environment of a father and mother?” Ratty Even if the father and mother abuse it?What happens if one parent passes away? Is tht child no longer in your “natural environment?”I think a loving couple are preferable to an abusive couple – or even worse… a pervert Priest.
Although one does not agree with the 20 month period opt out, a 6 to 9 month timescale would have been ample. If the Church wishes to close their adoption agencies, there are many other agencies which will be happy to place adoptions with Gay couples. Faith schools also should be closed.
Unbelievable! And coming from a man who presides over at least one gay member of the clergy – in his own cathedral, and who has a senior (male) manager who had an affair with a married man.The Catholic Church is an evil institution. Good riddance to them.
One of the MP’s in Question is an MP for Stroud (in Gloucestershire) David Drew. Here is his website In his Westminster and news in general he dose not mention that he is trying to bloke gay rights legislation, which I think is very gutless. He has a comment page which looks like it’s not moderated by anyone!
Someone who knows Vincent Nichols very well tells me that he is gay himself, so his support for the Vatican line on homosexuality seems either extremely dishonest or a sign of his own self loathing – the only way gay men can stay in the Church it seems.
What a shame they don’t spend more time and energy worrying about pervert priests fiddling with children, war, AIDS and starvation.The only thing they rattle on and on about is something that, under normal circumstances, should have very little impact on them. Spineless cowards commanded by an old Nazi.
I liked the comments of Rabbi Mark Solomon. Thank you such precisely stating the situation as it really is.