Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Bishop threatens to evict adoption agency over gay rights laws

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. another unmarried man in a dress fulminating against gayness.

    He’d prefer children to stay in Homes (maybe because they’re easier pickings for predatory priests) than with lesbian or gay couples where the sexuality is open and monitorable

  2. Simon Murphy 14 Oct 2008, 4:20pm

    His email address is bishop@lancasterrcdiocese.org.uk. I have written to him asking why he wishes to punish children?

  3. The only thing we hear from religious groups these days is HATE dont they have something better to do ???
    anit this – anti that – not surprise Palin is one of them

  4. henry collier 14 Oct 2008, 5:37pm

    The Church has every right to its beliefs no matter how ignorant and uninformed. On the other hand, the taxpayer has no obligation to fund such systematic discrimination. Take away their tax advantages and their public funding. Hit them where it hurts the most, in the pocket book.

  5. Better that the CCS continue this direction to comply with the Sexual Orientation Regulations and be ditched by the Roman Fascist Church! At least then children who might otherwise be forced to remain in care homes will have a chance of some family life.
    The welfare of the children MUST come first every time, not the doctrines of an organisation which takes about 500 years to admit to wrongs such as the matter of Gallileo, and if this means having a family which does not comply with the Roman Fascist Church as an alternative to having no experience of family, then so be it.

  6. I agree that the interests of the children must be everyone’s first priority; I also agree that the Bishop of Lancaster is behaving unconscionably in this case. But I don’t think this kind of rhetoric helps matters at all, least of all when it involves name-calling and allegations unworthy of response. I think gay-rights activists need to back down on this one too.

    It seems that the Bishop of Lancaster is prepared to take a disproportionately drastic step given that the scenario he describes is an entirely hypothetical one. I admit that I am not particularly au fait with the workings of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK, but I find it difficult to believe that they are constantly besieged with suitable gay and lesbian couples demanding to be allowed the right to adopt a child. The problem is that a fairly remote scenario has been turned into a matter of principle by both sides: gay activists see it as an acid-test for non-discrimination laws; many Christians and other people of faith see it as a sign of secular law impinging on the conscience of believers. If the matter is reduced to this kind of struggle for goals entirely outside the present concern, I don’t see any easy resolution: like many basically-liberal people, I would find it impossible to choose between the right of gay people to not be discriminated against and the right of Catholic charities to follow their consciences and the dictates of their faith in this instance.

    Both sides need to take a step backwards and to stop painting this as a battle for moral absolutes. The (often spurious) rights-rhetoric used to fuel this argument is unhelpful; the welfare of children in adoptive care must be the first priority. Therefore, I would suggest some tactful moral compromise: the bishops of the Church should turn a blind eye to those charities which wish to comply with the letter of the law. And the law in turn should allow some latitude to those charities which wish to remain true to their Catholic roots, at least for the present. Realistically, few gay and lesbian couples will ever approach Catholic agencies seeking adoption; realistically, those agencies that are unable or unwilling to assist them will be able to refer these couples to other providers. This is the only civil and humane resolution to the current question which respects all parties involved.

  7. Peter Fuchs 14 Oct 2008, 8:50pm

    It is very striking how hard a time of it the Roman Catholic Church is having with the realities of a democratic, pluralistic society. They have previously relied on their epicene diplomacy to bridge the gap. But such is really out of fashion now. It is clear that they are just not up to speed with the real give and take of a democracy.

  8. Speaking as an adopted person (via a church based agency too!!) the Catholic agencies have already been given an extra year to comply with the new laws.
    Realistically (as rjb says)in some areas there is only the Catholic agencies covering certain areas, and once again as has been said before, my taxes are used by these agencies, therefore, with all due respect they need to follow the law.
    If a Catholic church wants to cease funding the agency and remove the word ‘catholic’ – let ‘em!
    I would prefer that no church/religion was involved in any adoption at all, it should be down to a secular state funded agency in all areas.

  9. ps – should have said – “Speaking as an adopted person” who turned out gay . . .

  10. @rjb is again opiningn the right of the “religious” to discriminate against us.

    Let us be clear: you have an absolute right to conscience EXCEPT when it adversely affects LGBT people (as with BEM people and women).

    There were in the past a lot of tender consciences concerning misgenation: supportable and allowable, rjb?

    I’m sorry if I sound combatative, but I don’t believe rights are equivocal, either they’re absolute or they’re ALL subject to taste

  11. I think his actions are just the right thing for adoption agencies. Lets hope all churchs kick them out, then they will have no hold over them , no say and no passing down of their out dated bigotted attitudes

  12. “On grounds of conscience, formed by faith, we believe that same-sex partnerships do not provide the essential characteristics necessary for the well-being and development of the child.

    Another typical religionist whose world view is formed with total disregard for that stuff called EVIDENCE.

  13. Chris Brocklesby 15 Oct 2008, 3:32am

    As other contributors, I despair at how silent the church can be about the moral bankruptcy of the world’s economic structures; the continued poverty of the vast majority of people; the infliction of suffering by bullies with arms (among which are the US and UK, sadly). Yet some of its members show hatred to people in stable and loving relationships who build lives together and daily renew their commitment. Some of these would like legal recognition and to adopt or foster children. They face prejudice from religious people who use translated and retranslated scriptures which reflect values of ancient times, in order to support their own mean and loveless prejudices. They should give themselves a break and look at how they spread hate, not love.

  14. Bill Perdue 15 Oct 2008, 3:44am

    The cults should be ‘evicted’ from all contact with civil society. They have no right to interfere in marriage, divorce, pregnancy, child rearing, education or adoption. Those vital social contracts should not be tainted by the madness of the Dark Ages.

    In particular, with regard to children, bishops and priest should not be allowed near them unless the children are protected by armed guards.

    All arrangements between the cults and civil authorities, legitimate charities and any social service agencies should be severed because the constantly interfere in civil affairs.

  15. Edward in Los Angeles 15 Oct 2008, 3:46am

    To rjb: don’t you understand that the walls are crumbling on the old institutions? And that if gay parents want to approach a Catholic agency such as this one – an agency that is working to throw their support behind gay parents – that “backing down” as you so put it, is not an option?

  16. Steve Hope 15 Oct 2008, 9:23am

    Does this Catholic prelate believe that placing children for adoption with Jewish, Protestant, Muslim or divorced parents is an unacceptable breach of his church’s teaching or against the (carefully undefined) ‘best interests’ of children?
    Maybe not. These traditional hot-buttons have cooled down in recent times. It is the same old game: ‘tradition’ is selectively appealed to in order to prop up the obsessive prejudice which happens to prevail at the moment. We also have a leading figure in a church trying to force some of its adherents to choose between their faith and obeying the law. That position can be respected if certain penalties and consequences are accepted, such as loss of subsidy and state recognition. And here’s an interesting question for the bishop:in 1570 Pope Pius V instructed all faithful English Catholics that they were bound by their faith to overthrow the Protestant Elizabeth I and assassinate her if they could. Would he have complied, as a good Catholic?

  17. I have to admit, I agree with Edward that we shouldn’t back down. Largely because we’re starting to finally get through to people in the most homophobic bastions on the planet.

  18. Simon Murphy, many thanks for providing the address of this idiotic ignorant bigot.

    bishop@lancasterrcdiocese.org.uk

    I will write to him immediately. I hope everybody else will as well. Bombard this medieval twat with emails.

  19. There is little point in bombarding a “medieval twit” with emails as anyone with such outdated views on life probably considers a computer the work of the Devil Himself(!) As to the Catholic Church being worried about children brought up by decent gay people, please keep these children away from the guilt ridden Nazi run RC church which lets it own clery off when they committ acts against innocent children!

  20. Excellent idea Eddy.

    Should we start our letters just “Dear Medieval Twat” or the more respectful “Dear Bishop Twat of Lancaster”? :-)

  21. Or ‘Dear Evil Old Queen’ more like.

    All the best.

    Dave

  22. John Pedler 16 Oct 2008, 11:19am

    For centuries the Catholic Church and the Muslim religion have considered homosexuality a sin. There is far more understanding now that some people are born with a homosexual orientation.

    Now the boot is on the other foot, and those that hold traditional moral beliefs are being forced to obey legislation which demands they abandon certain moral beliefs.

    Homosexuals now enjoy the protection of the law, but religious believers no longer do in a moral matter important to them.

    The Bishop is entirely within his rights to require that a Catholic charity which goes against a fundamental moral tenet of his faith must drop the word Catholic from its name.

    Fair’s fair for everyone, surely. And there’s no need for homosexuals or those who believe homosexuality to be wrong to be uncivil to eachother – as are some of the above comments deriding the unfortunate bishop.

  23. In reply to John above.

    First of all, the protection of children should be at the heart of legislation.

    With regard to the RC church hierarchy’s attitude, the difficulty is, John, it is usually homosexuals being uncivil to other homosexuals. That is the root of the problem.

    All the best.

    Dave

  24. You accept that people are born gay (or black or women, for that matter). It is on these grounds that we do not discriminate against such people.

    However, no-one is born religious. It is an aquired world view chosen from amongst the many creation myths, gods etc.

    In other words, religion is a lifestyle choice, often a political stance and therefore deserves no more protection than one would give to a Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour supporter.

    The law should protect people for what they are. Ideas, on the other hand, are up for grabs.

  25. If someone tried to set up an organisation today with the ideals and aims of the Catholic Church, it would at best be laughed at and worst banned for incitement to hatred. Enough said.

  26. How’s the old queen getting on, has she evicted them yet?

  27. PeterinSydney 27 Apr 2011, 11:37am

    Bloody old fart

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all