Catholic Adoption Groups Break Ties with the Church

Carravagio's 'The Denial of St. Peter'

Government: "You knew Jesus, didn't you?"

Catholic Adoption Agencies: "Nah, not us guv. We'll give children to anyone."

Government: "But we know you, you are Catholic organisations?"

Catholic Adoption Agencies: "Oh don't be silly, I mean, who cares what's 'best' for children, really. I mean, I'm sure Our Lord wouldn't mind."

Government: "But we saw you, you don't want to place children in gay partnerships. You want them to be with a mother and a father."

Catholic Adoption Agencies: "No, we've decided to..."

(Heart)-breaking news story from The Times. At Easter too...breathtaking timing...Hang on, wasn't Tony Blair in charge of the Government when the 'Equality (Cough! Bulls**t! Cough!) Act was going through?

The BBC on 21 March 2007 reported that, 'At prime minister's questions earlier, Tony Blair said critics were effectively backing discrimination.

Tory MP Bill Cash [Catholic] told him: "You have given more preference to those who stand for gay rights than those who are concerned with conscience, with family and with religion."

But Mr Blair [Undergoing RCIA, presumably under the guidance of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, in preparation for converting to the Faith, or at the very least in close touch with the Cardinal] denied the equality laws were being "rail-roaded" through Parliament, saying there had already been much debate...'

This is part of the 'equality' package of laws Blair was bragging about the other day in the press. What does the 'Equality Act' bring again? Oh that's right, equality for everyone but people of religious faith and informed conscience.

While, it is doubtful that the Cardinal remained silent of his disapproval of Blair's equality bill and its impact on Catholic adoption agencies, one can imagine that Blair thought he knew better. Here's the fruit of Blair's 'Equality Act'...Nice one, Tony. Great job...

Courtesy of Times Online

'Leading Roman Catholic adoption agencies have severed their links with the Church so that they can comply with the law and provide a service to gay couples.

The Times has learnt that five big agencies, including the largest in the country, felt that they had no choice because the Church opposes gay adoptions. Some agencies are changing their constitutions, funding structures and even their names.

New laws in 2007 banned providers of goods and services from discriminating on the ground of sexuality, and adoption agencies were told that they would have to consider applications from gay couples. In response Catholic bishops warned that the agencies would have to close if an exemption was not granted.

The agencies find families for 250 children a year, making up one third of the adoption work of voluntary agencies. Crucially, they specialise in difficult cases such as large sibling groups and children with a high risk of mental illness or with a terminal illness.

The Government rejected appeals for an exemption but ministers gave the agencies a 20-month transition period, which has now ended.

It is understood that the Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, who will become the next head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, believes that the battle is far from over. Three agencies, including the Catholic Children’s Society, Westminster, hope to win a tribunal case under charity law.

Of those who have broken the link, the biggest is the Catholic Children’s Society in the South of England, which serves Arundel, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southwark and has changed its name to the Cabrini Children’s Society. Under the terms of its agreement with local bishops, money raised though parishes and Catholic schools will go towards child welfare projects other than adoption.'

If, and timescale wise, it makes sense (Blair became Catholic in December 2007), Mr Blair was under instruction of the Catholic Faith at the time of his driving forward this legislation, why did the Cardinal not say, "What you are proposing is against the Faith you wish to join, think twice," because surely in this case a carrot-stick approach could have been used by a wise instructor? I can't understand why His Eminence seems to have used a carrot-carrot approach only to complain later of the Equality Act's injustice. I must say, I'm starting to wonder who was the one with the most carrots. Still, I guess that's 'politics' for you. For more click here...