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

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

yes but purpleturtle you must see the difference: only one of those bodies is democratically elected and therefore empowered to act on behalf of the electorate.

I would have thought that a body like the Catholic Church with its "chequered" (i.e. abysmal) record on social issues and community relations might find this was a good time to bow out of adoption and take some time to reflect on where it has gone so badly wrong in the past and how it can avoid making such catatrophic mistakes in the future.

that's what I would do, if I was pope .

I notice a distinct lack of reflection and self criticism in the Catholic church, and in its place a great deal of misplaced righteous indignation and arrogance.

I agree he turned a lot of Jewish law upside down, but he was quite specific about the stuff he wanted turned upside down.

It seems to me stretching credulity to think he would have wanted to turn this extremely ancient taboo upside down, but neglected to mention it. (Unless of course, it was edited out of the gospels, which as apparantly lots of stuff was, is entirely possible.)

harpsi maybe you don't notice reflection in the church because that's not what the media wants to report. I don't carry any banner for the catholic church, but I think it's entirely wrong to say there is no spirit of reflection and/ or repentance. There's masses. You only need to talk to any old priest or lay member of a church to find it.

And as to the church's chequered history, come on, for centuries the church was the only welfare state there was. It wasn't a very satisfactory one and boy did it come with strings attached, but it was the only show in town as far as welfare provision was concerned.

I actually quite admire the catholic church for sticking to their beliefs and repeatedly refusing to alter these beliefs to "fit in with the current times", as we regularly see the anglican church do.

They cannot possibly back down on this. They believe that (rightly or wrongly) homosexuality is a sin, so how they can place children with homosexual couples. They just can't do it.

I'm a lapsed catholic who was adopted through the Catholic Childrens Society and I also have several gay friends.

How do people come to their conclusions about the attitude, lack of reflection etc about the catholic church? From observing from the inside? I think not!

hmmm, maybe caligula, I don't come into contact with the Catholic church too often these days but my childhood was a different matter. maybe things have changed hugely in the last twenty years. maybe. if so, whay is the church still fannying around worrying about this essentially marginal issue?
I accept your point about the welfare state, although in this country that isn't strictly accurate. lots of social support was given by the gentry/aristocracy and/or parish/middle classes.
when I spoke about the chequered history, I was thinking more about the 20th century tbh. very recent history.

Roobie - by observation of how they exercise their power and influence and how they spend their money.
that said, I have a great deal of time and admiration for many of the protestant churches and their involvement in the community, particularly the more unfashionable end - homelessness, drug abuse, mental health issues.

Matthew 19 when Jesus was giving the teaching about divorce, some of the disciples said that if this was the case then it would be better not to marry at all (typical men), Jesus replied; "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven" It is on this teaching that the Church decided priests should not marry. But just what did Jesus mean by eunuchs? The word eunuch is a translation, it could equally have meant a homosexual man, but it was presumed that the word was eunuch.

The Church believes that lust is a sin. As sex is there purely for the procreation of children, sex for enjoyment would be classed as lust and therefore a sin. So gay couples having sex would be committing a sin.

I don't think the Church is doing this to discriminate. They are following their beliefs. After all, in this country the age of consent is 16, but in other countries it is lower. Does that mean that if a 15yo couple from Thailand came over here and had sex they would be punished? Yes they would because they have to abide by our laws.

Religions have laws too and if you are in that religion you are supposed to abide by that law. However if you went out of that religion you could do what you liked. So it is here. I don't see what the problem is.

i like Nick Robinson's blog on this.

tries again

Fair enough re 20th c.

But I don't know why you think only protestant churches are involved in social welfare. I work for a charity and all denominations are involved, catholics aren't too busy waving incense around to get their hands dirty. They're just as involved in alcohol and drug rehabilitation, housing, befriending etc.

caligula prejudice perhaps?

bossykate you don't know my history background or experience so please don't make any assumptions about me.
I speak only from my experiences. ime the Catholic church retains a degree of separation from community issues that sets it apart. perhaps it is to do with leadership locally.

you're right harpsi, i can only judge by what i see on this thread...

Rhubarb if it simply a question of abiding by the law then it is simple:
the law of this country requires the Catholic church not to discriminate against gay couples.
so they should abide by that law.
There really isn't a conflict.
if they can't abide by that law, then they should stop operating in this area.

OK bossykate, could you please point out where I have demonstrated prejudice on this thread.
I am genuinely interested.

The law of the land is one thing, religious law is another.

I don't see anyone complaning about castration of boys by Muslims.

Let's not make this thread vindictive. I am a practising catholic. I do not agree with all their rules, but I respect that they have those rules.

By harpsichordcarrier on Thu 25-Jan-07 14:23:59
yes but purpleturtle you must see the difference: only one of those bodies is democratically elected and therefore empowered to act on behalf of the electorate.

I would have thought that a body like the Catholic Church with its "chequered" (i.e. abysmal) record on social issues and community relations might find this was a good time to bow out of adoption and take some time to reflect on where it has gone so badly wrong in the past and how it can avoid making such catatrophic mistakes in the future.

that's what I would do, if I was pope .

I notice a distinct lack of reflection and self criticism in the Catholic church, and in its place a great deal of misplaced righteous indignation and arrogance.

and later....

I have a great deal of time and admiration for many of the protestant churches and their involvement in the community, particularly the more unfashionable end - homelessness, drug abuse, mental health issues.

caligula challenged you on both of these posts very well - i don't have anything to add.

there are a vocal group of catholic bashers on mnet.

agree with harpsichord

can see how it is massively controversial and difficult but human rights need to come above religious beliefs

purple turtle you are missing the point. of course the catholic church, like any other religious body, is entitled to engage in the democratic process.
but their views are not on an equal footing with the government's, for the reason I stated.
it is also somewhat disturbing to me that the church (not just the catholic church) seem content to expend so much energy on such marginal issues.

agree again

can I just sit here and nod

let it be scribed for the record

I agree with what harpsi says

unless I dont

in which case I will say

HC. That is exactly what they are saying they will do. They will close their adoption agencies, because the 'law of thw land' is incompatible with their preferred practice. So what's the beef?

sorry bk maybe I am missing something but why is any of that "prejudiced"?
I am stating my observations and personal experience. not to mention historical fact.

Why is the catholic church being singled out? Other religions also flount so called human rights with arranged marriages, castration of babies for religious reasons, etc.

People have a choice. If they are catholic then they should be aware of the catholics rules and they can choose to stay with that religion or not. If they want to adopt, they can go with other agencies. The catholic adoption agency is specifically for people who want their children brought up by other catholics and for parents who want to adopt babies to bring them up as catholics.

If you don't agree with the catholic church's teachings, then why would you stay with them and want to adopt through them?