Scotland’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien is using some uncharacteristically strong language about gay adoption. A new law will require all adoption agencies, Catholic or not, to not consider sexual preference, i.e. homosexuality, when reviewing applications, so the Church wants a “conscience clause” exception. (Of course, rather than seek an exemption only for themselves, perhaps they should fight this as a bad law altogether.)
Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics, has warned that Scotland’s adopted children must not become “guinea pigs in some distorted social experiment aimed at redefining marriage, subverting the family and threatening the good of society”.
Unfortunately, anti-Catholicism is still pretty deeply entrenched in Scotland and so asking for an exemption is being portrayed a trying to impose “Romanism” on the country.
Calum Irving, director of Stonewall Scotland, the gay rights campaign group, said: ... “The Catholic church is continually asking for its belief system to be imposed on the rest of Scottish society and I hope that the executive legislates in a non-discriminatory way. Granting the Catholic church exemptions is a slippery slope.”
Unfortunately, here in Massachusetts we have to call together a committee representing the four dioceses to discuss the issue before we’ll ask for what Cardinal O’Brien has demanded: that we be allowed to follow the dictates of our conscience and not be forced to “do violence” to adopted children, as Pope John Paul put it.
Technorati Tags: adoption, anti-Catholic, religious freedom, Scotland
… then how is allowing gays to adopt not an imposition of their own values?
What’s that direction of movement against?
Seeing how a few years ago homosexuality were illegal, its clear that the slippery slope is letting them slip into Sodom and not into the Heavenly Jerusalem.
“Of course, rather than seek an exemption only for themselves, perhaps they should fight this as a bad law altogether.”
This is a sad habit. The bishops often fight for the right of Church agencies to opt out of secular intrusions upon conscience, but they too often don’t fight for the similarly-threatened consciences of lay organizations and employers.
Giving Scots bishops red hats seems to give them a wee bit more courage on some fronts, cf. Winning.
Now, what do we give them so that when we ask a priest about the completely re-designed liturgy that we have just endured (in the cathedral, no less), and ask if the bishop knows about it, we don’t hear “oh, I first did this with the bishop a couple of years ago in Lourdes. It was his idea.” Credit where credit is due, there is now a weekly indult mass, not a quarterly one.
Much as I would never deny that anti-Catholicism is a big part of Scottish history that continues like a recessive gene to this day, I don’t see how this law or the reaction quotes have much to do with the traditional Scottish anti-Catholicism about … (Victor puts on his best Maggie-Smith-as-Miss-Jean-Brodie voice) the Church of Rome. That whole story could have been written anywhere in the Anglophone world with only the proper nouns changed.
I for one can’t imagine John Knox or John Calvin or Pastor Glass using the phrase “their belief system” or not smiting Stonewall Scotland with all the curses of Deuteronomy. And Jeremiah. Combined.
Perhaps the Scottish homosexuals just need to adopt in Boston where they get the full backing of Boston “Catholic” Charities?