* MORE BRITISH CATHOLIC ADOPTION AGENCIES
TO CLOSE DOORS INSTEAD OF BOWING TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS - When the
Labour government's Sexual Orientation Regulations were passed last year, the leadership
of the Catholic Church in England and Wales warned that the new law would spell the end of
Catholic involvement in social service, particularly adoption. Now the first of the UK's
Catholic adoption agencies affected are announcing they will close their doors for good
rather than betray religious principles and their guiding principle of the good of the
child.
Bishop Malcolm McMahon said his diocese of Nottingham would be cutting ties with their
adoption agency, the Catholic Children's Society, because of the law that forces them to
consider homosexual partners as equally qualified to adopt as people in natural
heterosexual relationships.
The Nottingham agency, together with that of the Northampton Catholic diocese, will
become a secular institution "with a Christian character" by merging with the
adoption agency of the Anglican Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham in October. The parish
churches of the diocese will no longer solicit funds to support the agency.
The Nottingham agency was founded in 1948 by the Congregation of the Sisters of St.
Joseph of Peace and placed 25 children a year with adoptive families.
Contrary to common accusations that Catholics are trying to unjustly discriminate
against homosexuals, the Catholic Church holds that its motivation is rather the desire to
protect the best interests of children. The Church teaches, according to recent documents
from the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that allowing a child to
be adopted by homosexual partners "would actually mean doing violence to these
children" by placing them into a situation where their full social and spiritual
development would be threatened.
Homosexual partners have had the legal right to adopt children in Britain since 2002.
The new law, however, removes the right of Catholic and other Christian agencies to
decline to consider homosexuals for adoption.
The move by the Nottingham diocese follows similar decisions made elsewhere in Britain.
In the summer of 2007, shortly after the legislation was passed, the Leeds-based Catholic
Care, which placed 20 children a year with adoptive families, voted to pull out of
adoption services. Bishop Patrick O'Donohue of Lancaster announced at the same time that
the Catholic Caring Services, an adoption agency working in Lancashire and Cumbria, will
likely close rather than bow to the regulations.
When the legislation passed in 2007, Cormac Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the head of the
Catholic Church in England and Wales, attempted to find a compromise in which Catholic
adoption agencies would be exempt. Tony Blair, later to be received into the Catholic
Church by the same Cardinal, refused to consider an exemption. Instead Blair offered his
own version of a compromise: Catholic agencies had a year to adjust to adopting children
to gay partners or close. That deadline comes at the end of this month.
The conflict comes at the same time that local branches of government continue to
discriminate against Christians who volunteer to take in foster children. In November
2007, Vincent and Pauline Matherick, a Christian couple who had fostered children for
years, were told by their Somerset council that they would no longer be allowed to
continue because of their religious objections to homosexuality. They were later
reinstated but only after a media furor and notices to the council by a Christian lawyers'
group.
In February this year, it was reported that a Christian couple in Derby, Eunice and
Owen Johns, is suing the local council after their application to foster children was
refused because of their religious objections to homosexuality. In addition, the
Labour-controlled council adoption panel was said to be "upset" that the couple
insisted that children in their care would be required to accompany the family to church
on Sundays.
In September 2007, an independent investigation revealed that a local council's fear of
being labeled homophobic had allowed a total of 19 boys to be placed with a pair of
homosexual child molesters. Despite growing reservations by staff and complaints from the
mother of two of the boys, the Wakefield council placed the children into the care of Ian
Wathey and Craig Faunch who were convicted in May 2006 of molesting and filming
eight-year-old twins and two 14 year-old boys.
(LifeSiteNews.com, 23 Apr 2008) (to index)
* ITALIAN DOCTORS REFUSING TO COMMIT ABORTION - The Italian
Ministry of Health has reported that nearly 70 percent of Italian gynecologists now refuse
to perform abortions on moral grounds and that the number is only increasing.
Doctors in Italy are able to use a "conscientious objection" clause, which
has been strenuously defended by the Catholic Church in the predominantly Catholic country
since abortion became legal in 1978, and refuse to commit abortions.
Between 2003 and 2007 the number of gynecologists claiming protection under the
conscience clause for abortion rose from 58.7 percent to 69.2 percent, according to the
report.
For anesthetists helping in abortions, the figure of those refusing to participate rose
from 45.7 percent to 50.4 percent.
"In the south, this increase is even more pronounced and in certain areas the rate
has almost doubled," an AFP report explains. In Campania, the region around Naples,
the proportion of gynecologists refusing to carry out the procedure reached 83 percent,
and in Sicily 84.2 percent.
A similar situation exists in Canada where, though abortion is technically legal up to
the moment of birth, such a high percentage of doctors refuse to commit abortions that
abortion access is in effect restricted.
According to an article by Ted Byfield published last May by WorldNetDaily, "under
Canadian Medical Association rules a doctor need neither perform an abortion nor even
direct a patient to an abortion provider. Only 15 percent of Canadian hospitals provide
the service, and that percentage is declining."
Byfield's article came in response to a demand made upon the Canadian Medical
Association by Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the Washington D.C. based National
Abortion Federation, that all doctors in the country be forced to refer for abortions,
whether or not they object morally or on religious grounds.
However, even notorious abortionist Henry Morgentaler admitted that doctors should be
allowed to opt-out of performing abortions. When asked in an interview by the National
Review of Medicine, "Should doctors be allowed to conscientiously object to
performing an abortion?" Morgentaler answered, "Yes. One fundamental reason is
that doctors should not be obliged to do things which they don't approve of themselves,
and secondly, a more practical reason, a doctor who doesn't believe in it is more likely
not to do a good job."
(LifeSiteNews.com, 23 Apr 2008) (to index)
* POEM WRITTEN BY JUDGE ROY MOORE FROM ALABAMA -
America the Beautiful, or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride; I'm glad they'll never see.
Babies piled in dumpsters, Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty; your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine
choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain
From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love and a need to always pray.
We've kept God in our temples, how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne.
We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges; who throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb.
You think that God's not angry, that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God, from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children, will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face and mend our evil way:
Then God will hear from Heaven; and forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land and those who live within.
But, America the Beautiful, if you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee
(CFT News, May 2008) (to index)
* STATES EYE LAWS TO ALLOW QUESTIONING OF EVOLUTION - The
debate over evolution is evolving. Although federal courts have banned teaching
"creation theory" or "intelligent design theory" in public schools,
legislators in several states are seeking new ways to allow teachers to cast doubt on the
theory of evolution.
The Florida House of Representatives passed a bill this week that will require schools
to teach "critical analysis" of evolution. Michigan introduced a similar
"academic freedom" bill. Louisiana, Alabama and Missouri also have legislation
under debate, although no state has adopted a law yet.
Opponents say these bills that allow the questioning of evolution are a smokescreen for
teaching creationism or intelligent design. Creation theory is the religious belief that
God created all life. Intelligent design is the theory that some features of the universe
and of living things are best explained by an "intelligent cause."
In Florida, Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, who sponsored the House bill, insists it would
"not permit, nor authorize, nor allow the teaching of creationism or intelligent
design" or any other religious theory. But the bill would offer supplementary
scientific information and encourage teachers and students to engage in discussion that
criticizes evolution.
"I do not expect teachers to go into the classrooms and present a bizarre array of
theories," Hays told FOXNews.com. "The theory of evolution, which most
practicing biologists are teaching today, is inadequate in explaining our existence in the
eyes of some scientists. Teachers need to be able to bring their students up to
date."
Rep. John Moolenaar of Midland, Michigan, who sponsored his state's academic freedom
bill and was a science major in college, said it's only fair that students and teachers
question, for example, phenomena like the sudden appearance of diverse species, not
explained by theories of gradual progression. "Educators should have the freedom to
bring in the best scientific information to facilitate those discussions," Moolenaar
said. "We're trying to get students to ask the question: What scientific evidence
exists for what theories?"
In similar moves, the Alabama State Senate passed a non-harassment bill for teachers
expressing critiques of evolution, and Missouri's House of Representatives is expected to
vote next week on a bill that would allow for intelligent design to be taught as a
hypothesis. Michigan's bill protects teachers and students from being penalized for
discussing challenges to traditional scientific theories on such topics as biological
evolution, the chemical origins of life, human impact on climate change and human cloning.
(Fox News, 1 May 2008) (to index)