What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Orthodox Christians can't give foster care in the UK?

‘The council said: “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?”'

A Christian couple has been deemed "unfit" for foster parenthood in England because of their views on homosexuality.

So far from saying that this is going too far, a British homosexual rights organization approves the decision and derides the Christians' view by saying that it is "redolent of the 19th century." Now there's an argument.

The implications for adoption in the UK should be obvious as well.

The case is going to court.


Comments (13)

I'm afraid that is as far as ethical debate goes in the British Press. You get one sound bite to sell your case. Best line wins, so that everyone has time to discuss the deeper issues in life. Such as who will win "Britain's Got Talent/Pop Idol/Strictly Come Dancing."

For the record - the best that British orthodox Christians can hope for in the future is tolerance. We have not a hope of getting a fair hearing in any of these debates, never mind winning any one of these debates.

This looks like something less than the best case, then. No toleration in sight.

We've gone from "homosexuals can't adopt" to "people who criticize homosexuality can't adopt" in one generation? That was fast.

(Yes, I know this is a foster care case, not an adoption case, but if British law means that you are "unfit" to be given the privilege of being a parent when you weren't one already because of these opinions, I don't see how that can fail to rule out traditional Christians adopting as well. Wouldn't they fail the home study?)

This debate was lost when "orthodox" Christianity accepted contraception within marriage. When the procreative aspect of reproductive behavior is denied, the meaning of this behavior is reduced to pleasure. I use you for sexual pleasure and you use me for sexual pleasure, and consent is the mere criterion for receiving and giving sexual pleasure. Why deny homosexuals their pleasure when heterosexuals merely mimic the reproductive act (if they are doing so at all)? Who is to say that there is anything wrong?

There is meaning and purpose to what we do. If we believe ourselves powerful enough to change the meaning of our nature, then we are powerful enough to abolish Man. We take on the mantle of gods, since we are such powerful beings. We (those who lack the power to change meanings) are slaves to those who make our meanings for us.

‘The council said: “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?”'

To which, they should have responded, "Do you know, you are telling us that it's not OK to be a Christian?"

What is the basis for saying that it is wrong to say that sodomy is wrong? It can only be because sex is a matter of taste. In that case, the state is saying that thinking of our sexual powers as ordered toward a certain end is mistaken. In that case, it is telling us that it's not OK to think like a Christian on the nature of our sexual powers. If only Christians were Muslims and gays were Christians would British liberals begin to understand. In any event, the UK will be allowed to advertise in Jobs for Philosophers. The mob of independent minds.

It's pretty blatant, isn't it, TA?

It becomes more and more evident that this is a zero-sum game.

Oppressing orphans is one of the *other* sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.

Following the closure of Christian adoption agencies, fewer kids were adopted in the country.

According to The Christian Institute:

There were 3,200 adoptions during the year ending 31 March 2010.

This represents a four per cent decline from the previous year when there were 3,300, and a 14 per cent decrease from the 2006 figure of 3,700.

Correlation does not equal causation, obviously, but let's not kid ourselves: same-sex adoption is mostly about fulfilling adults' desires and egalitarian demands, not about the best interests of children.

Suppose you're an enlightened social worker in the UK. Who are you going to prefer for adoption cases? A traditional married couple or a same-sex couple who can't have children naturally and are to your mind members of an oppressed subculture?

There's going to be all sorts of behind-the-scenes preferment.

Bob writes: This debate was lost when "orthodox" Christianity accepted contraception within marriage

While we Catholics love to score points on this topic, I think pornography is a far more proximate cause for the marginalization of Christian morals and common sense about marriage and childrearing.

Homosexual apologists keep forgetting to pretend that homosexual unions are not supposed to affect traditional marriages in any way.

And while I am sympathetic to the view that societal acceptance of contraception leaves us on weak ground for complaining about homosexual arragements, I'm not sympathetic to rolling out the white flag just yet.

‘The council said: “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?”'

They probably could have answered that question in the affirmative and still be within orthodox Christian teaching. It is ok to be homosexual - that is, same sex attracted - if one has no control over it. It not ok to act upon that attraction, but that is not what the council asked according to that quote.

It really depends on what a person means by "OK".

I suspect that an overwhelming majority here would say that it's not OK to be a pedophile. There is something objectively disordered about being sexually attracted to children. In the same sense, there is something objectively disordered about being sexually attracted to the same sex.

What is OK is that a person may have these disordered inclinations and decide to live chaste lifestyle. It is OK to be a homosexual in the same way that it's OK to be an alcoholic.

I do hold out a small hope that liberal Christian denominations will reverse themselves and return to the traditional and orthodox teachings on sexual morality. For my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters, I hope that they recognize that a pro-contraceptive view and an opposition to the homosexual act are two views that cannot be reconciled. Elizabeth Anscombe clearly spells this out:

And if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contraceptive intercourse, and if it could become general practice everywhere when there is intercourse but ought to be no begetting, then it's very difficult to see the objection to this morality, for the ground of objection to fornication and adultery was that sexual intercourse is only right in the sort of set-up that typically provides children with a father and mother to care for them. If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don't mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree but it's the reproductive type of act) then why, if you can change it, should it be restricted to the married? Restricted, that is, to partners bound in a formal, legal, union whose fundamental purpose is the bringing up of children? For if that is not its fundamental purpose there is no reason why for example "marriage" should have to be between people of opposite sexes. But then, of course, it becomes unclear why you should have a ceremony, why you should have a formality at all. And so we must grant that children are in this general way the main point of the existence of such an arrangement. But if sexual union can be deliberately and totally divorced from fertility, then we may wonder why sexual union has got to be married union. If the expression of love between the partners is the point, then it shouldn't be so narrowly confined.

Lydia is correct that it is a zero sum game. It's simply not possible to compromise on sexual mores. It's possible to be tolerant of persons, but it's not possible to be tolerant of these evil ideas.

That wasn't _quite_ what I meant by a zero-sum game. I meant zero-sum as between Christians and homosexual activists. The law cannot possibly accommodate the wishes of both.

Not if activists see religious objections as masks for "heterosexist" patriarchal power structures. You simply can't debate with someone who knows what you really mean.

I don't think it's a matter of seeing it as a mask _for_ something else. The article makes it pretty clear that the opinions _in themselves_ are wrongthought and that parents are considered unfit for fostering if they won't teach the required opinions to the children--namely, that homosexual activities are normal--instead. It's that stark.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.