so because we're the catholic church, we should be allowed to discriminate

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

whopper!

You've got to be kidding.

Rhuuuubaaaarb - get over here and tell me to leave now!

crossed posts!!!

I don't read the Guardian and I'm not a liberal I'm hard left and sneer at liberalism.

I only don't read it because I haven't got time though. Because of Mumsnet

Mosschops30 has a point, Catholics don't have to believe what some cronies of Blair think they should.
But what would be their position if Catholics were banned from adoption because they would probably come into contact with their priests whose record is rather less than spotless on the old gay rape of young children thing isn't it ?

If there was a state school which decided it didn't want to take Catholics, requiring kids to travel long distances to a really crap one. Would they be quiet about it ?

Sylviaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

The number of Roman Catholic children in the world today runs to millions. The idea that a significant number of those children are at risk is, frankly, bonkers.

Many RC priests are prepared to work in areas that no-one else will and with people and children that others have forgotten.

The continued focus on the issue of abuse shows that you are not well informed.

About bloody time!

Sylvia - I'd agree with your last post, just not the one before that (i'm still hopeful you were joking...) Am gutted I've got to get to bed - will be catching up with this thread tomorrow...

Dottydot - why would you disagree with the idea of family being protected. That is not anti-homosexual, it is pro-family.

Protected against what?

No, she just disagrees with the Guardian bit cause it's her favourite paper!

Depends on your definition of 'family' I guess.

For protected, read promoted, or safeguarded, or thought about or just remembered.

So yes, it boils down to your interpretation of a "healthy view of a family" - if that's what needs protecting...

Family!

How many reports do people need to read regarding the necessary requirements for a family before they accept that the Mum and Dad formula works best?

Single parents do well and raise marvellous children, but if you are designing a set-up from the start then a two person set-up works with one of either flavour for balance and growth.

Two person set up also = Mum and Mum or Dad and Dad!

Off to bed now - dp's back from work!

exactly Marina. The catholic church has many very good working gay priests, as does the Anglican church. and many gay members of their congregation. all is well as well as long they do not speak out about their sexual orientation. A terrible streak of hypocrisy.

I do hope this does not turn into a bash the Catholic Church thread (I'm not catholic btw). I'd be interested to hear the views of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc on this.

My view is that the RC church has the right to adhere to its doctrine but imo, they need to be consistent with it. If they accept gay priests, then they should allow gay couples to adopt. If they do not accept gay priests, then I would not expect them to alter their position in order to permit gay couples to adopt.

In my experience, racists seem genuinely believe the stuff they spout, and for some it is very important. They will spend time and effort on this, for no reward.

Why is this different from Christians refusing to allow gay people to use publicly subsidised services ?
As charities, they get a lot of public money, it's a bit rich for them to claim independance.

I can't see any difference between locking out gays and any other form of bigotry.

but speedymama they don't accept gay priests at doctrine level - they do on a practical level as long as it is a secretive thing. It is a terrible hypocrisy that is unfair on many of the gay people in both the anglican and catholic church who do a lot of good work.

Obviously sleeping around if you are a priest is not a good thing whether you are gay or heterosexual. But gay priests are often celibate or in committed monogomous relationships, as would be the adopting couples. As Christ never condemns homosexuality, and the Old Testament links to criticism are tenuous, anti-gay feeling is largely based on tradition and bigotry, and urgently needs to be addressed in the world wide church.

Actually if you delve into the rulings of the church you will find that the church does not do into what your sexual orientation is when you join the priesthood, so long as you do not engage in sexual activities. So it would not matter if you were gay or straight.

The Church says that it has no problem with people loving each other, but the problem lies with the sexual act which it believes is against nature.

The Church believes that sex is there for procreation not recreation. If you choose to have sex you must not prevent nature from taking its course and producing children.

I am not saying that this is my belief. It is the belief of the Church and I respect them their beliefs.

I too hope that this does not turn into a catholic bashing exercise .

I think as nearlythree said that it would be a spiteful God who made people gay and then denied them access to a full loving relationship. As it is a ruling based on doctrine and not on Christ's teachings i do not respect it at all.