Updated again Saturday
Charity Finance reports Charity Tribunal dismisses Catholic adoption case
The Charity Tribunal has rejected the latest attempt by a catholic adoption charity to circumnavigate rules preventing it from discriminating against homosexual couples seeking to adopt children.
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) had sought to take advantage of an exemption in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which suggests that discrimination can occur if it is in pursuit of charitable objectives.
In its preliminary judgment in March, the Tribunal had ruled the exemption could only apply if the charity’s activities were not made unlawful by other provisions.
But at the final hearing last month, the charity was unable to demonstrate that it could operate in such a way.
See also Third Sector Online reports (registration required)
Children’s charity Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) has lost its appeal to the Charity Tribunal against the Charity Commission’s refusal to allow it to change its objects to allow its adoption service to discriminate against homosexual parents.
The charity wanted to take advantage of an exemption in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 that permits charities to discriminate on the grounds of “the provisions of a charitable instrument”, such as a governing document.
But in its first ever final judgement, the tribunal’s panel of three legal members, led by president Alison McKenna, concluded that Catholic Care would infringe other provisions in the regulations if it discriminated against homosexual parents and would therefore be operating unlawfully…
Two earlier reports from the same source:
Allow us to exclude gay people, Catholic adoption charity tells Charity Tribunal.
Adoption charities must justify equality law exemption
The decisions of the Charities Commission and the Charities Tribunal are all available online:
Charities Commission:
final decision (PDF) and summary here
Charities Tribunal: (all PDFs)
Directions Order with Ruling (7 January 2009)
Ruling on Preliminary Question (13 March 2009)
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v The Charity Commission for England and Wales decision (1 June 2009)
Other media reports:
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Catholic ban on adoption by same-sex couples is ruled illegal
Telegraph Catholic charities breaking law on homosexual adoption
Neil Addison writes at Religion Law Blog about this in Catholic Adoption Agencies lose case:
…What the agencies were trying to do was to change their objects so as to add the following
“The Charity shall only provide adoption services to heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church”
They argued that this would enable them to operate because of the exemption for Charities under reg 18 of the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 which say
“18.—(1) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a person to provide benefits only to persons of a particular sexual orientation, if—
(a) he acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and
(b) the restriction of benefits to persons of that sexual orientation is imposed by reason of or on the grounds of the provisions of the charitable instrument”
Mr Addison goes on to explain where he disagrees with the tribunal, why even if the agency had won it would have been a pyrrhic victory, and he also offers an alternative solution that he had recommended, but which was it seems rejected.
The Catholic Herald has reported on this, Judgment seals fate of adoption agencies. This includes:
However, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator allowed St Margaret’s Adoption and Child Care of the Archdiocese of Glasgow to change its charitable objects to continue its policy of assessing only heterosexual married couples and single people as adopters.
That has prompted a complaint from the National Secular Society, see Scottish Charity Regulator lambasted for caving in to Catholic Charity over gay adoption.
See also SNP and Catholic Church’s secret plan to sidestep legislation on gay adoptions in the Glasgow Sunday Herald.
Ekklesia has reported on the English case, and refers to the views of the LGCM RC Caucus, see Gay Catholics welcome rulings against adoption agency discrimination.
The publication of the proceedings before the Charities Tribunal has publicised the actual drafting of the proposed charitable objects which the Leeds and Birmingham agencies wished to adopt.
Both draft instruments relied upon the following paragraph to gain the desired exemption: “The Society shall provide adoption services only to heterosexuals and only in accordance with the tenets of the Roman Catholic church”.
The Roman Catholic Caucus of LGCM points out that, contrary to the general press comment about the appeals by these adoption agencies, the agencies were not seeking permission to place children only with married couples. They were seeking to exclude all lesbian, gay and bisexual people from the ambit of their services, including those who choose to live their lives celibately in strict accordance with Catholic church teaching.
“This proposed object is blatantly contrary to Catholic church teaching,” comments the Caucus.
The Caucus says it also became clear in various discussions before the Charities Tribunal that the “adoption services” referred to include services to children who are to be placed or have been placed for adoption. The proposed wording would therefore have required the agency to ascertain the sexual orientation of any child who was placed for adoption as a condition of providing services to that child.
As the “adoption services” described include support after the child has been placed, this would also involve withdrawing after-care services to a family in which the adopted child comes out after the adoption has taken place. The LGCM Catholic Caucus says it considers that “most Catholics will find this proposal both offensive and contrary to the values of the Roman Catholic Church.”
The full text of the statement from the LGCM RC Caucus is available at Caucus reacts to Adoption Ruling.
I will undoubtedly be swimming against the tide on this subject on this website, but I think this is an unfortunate decision for religious freedom in the UK. A religious adoption agency ought to be able to place children in homes it considers to be beneficial for the child by the standards of that religion. One wouldn’t expect an Orthodox Jewish adoption agency to be forced to place children with pork-eating Jewish couples, for example. The Roman Catholic Church holds homosexual activity to be immoral; I think they are wrong, but as we say here in the States, “It’s a… Read more »
I have to second BillyD’s comments. My partner and I are hoping to adopt in the next couple of years, and I’m Roman Catholic. Though I wouldn’t dream of going to an RC agency because I know they will toe the party line, they should have the right to place children where they think is best.
Do religious adoption agencies in the UK receive public funds?
Yes, they do receive public funds, and that is the problem. They are, it appears, not able to provide the adoption service without the money paid to them by the various local government bodies with whom they deal.
Charles
that’s exactly the point – they do receive public funds.
Also, adoption is a public service. They don’t restrict themselves to placing RC and churched children.
Of course they have the right to place children where they think is best. What they haven’t got is the right to rule out one group of people on ideological grounds without giving the individual potential adopters the opportunity to show that they might be best.
They shouldn’t be able to discriminate if they receive public funds. Sounds like they need to find new sources of funding!
“They shouldn’t be able to discriminate if they receive public funds. Sounds like they need to find new sources of funding!”
Agreed. Their receiving public funds limits their right to run the program according to their private standards.
I believe the Tribunal gave every possible help so that the charitable purpose of helping needy children could continue to be followed, they did everything in their power to help the charity’s trustees carry on providing a resource for these hard to place children without actually contravening the law. The Tribunal clearly did not see the matter with the same eyes as the Charity Commission – and even though they bent over backwards to help the charity the trustees were unwilling to amend the function of the charity so that needy children might be served without breaching either the law… Read more »
Even though I know an excellent example of a gay couple adopting a mentally handicapped child, who would otherwise be institutionalised and unwanted. I still feel in my heart of hearts that a child should have a loving Father and Mother. Its also a fact that there are many gay people who also believe that too. There was a gay chap ( forget his name ) on Desert island discs who said the same.
I will provide a link to the full statement from which this is an excerpt as soon as it is published, but here’s a quote from a Statement by the RC Caucus of LGCM about this matter: “The publication of the proceedings before the Charities Tribunal has publicised the actual drafting of the proposed charitable objects which the Leeds and Birmingham agencies wished to adopt. Both draft instruments relied upon the following paragraph to gain the desired exemption: “The Society shall provide adoption services only to heterosexuals and only in accordance with the tenets of the Roman Catholic church”. Contrary… Read more »
I was the victim of “hand out other people’s ‘bastards’ like confetti and spit in the face of birth mothers while we do it” adoption in the 60s, so I am trying hard not to Go Off On One here, accepting that most adoption providers will have improved their behaviour since… “discrimination can occur if it is in pursuit of charitable objectives” Is this rather odd-sounding rule “really” intended to cover small-scale cases like legacies endowing scholarships for left-handed girls in Peckham? I can imagine some children might be best placed with a celibate gay person, e.g. if they had… Read more »
Charles: “Sounds like they need to find new sources of funding!” Yeah, because Rome is so terribly cash strapped! Even if they don’t manage to wiggle out of making reparations in child abuse cases like they did here, I really don’t think Rome’s coffers would drain. RIW “I still feel in my heart of hearts that a child should have a loving Father and Mother.” So, widows and widowers are what, handicapped? Besides, Robert, your part of the world might have escaped the sexual abuse scandals, but we were the first to deal with it. Rome’s credibility to speak on… Read more »
“I still feel in my heart of hearts that a child should have a loving Father and Mother.”
You can do that on your own dime, RIW.
This is no different than in this country (USA), where the RCC/other private/religious institution, keep trying to get “vouchers” of PUBLIC TAX MONEY, to pay for their schools.
As a US citizen, I get to VOTE for my local public school board. If the RCC were to get taxpayer vouchers, would I be able to vote for the bishop? No deal! >:-/
RIW
Isn’t the key phrase “who would otherwise be institutionalised and unwanted”?
We’d all like happy families, but if my children had found themselves in state care at any time in their young lives, I’d have much rather a loving couple adopted them than that they stayed in “care”.
What disgusted me was that at Mass in Wales we had a letter read from the bishops stating we must close our adoption agencies as the Catholic Church cannot accept gay adoption. Then in the concluding paragraph we were told to support the agencies which were no longer Catholic and facilitating gay adoption! The Magisterium is never wrong on definitive issues and I accept their teaching unequivocally, but the local hierarchy are totally confused and have handled this affair poorly. My personal opinion may be flawed but never the definitive voice of him, who was told, ” confirm my brethren.”… Read more »
To clarify for non-UK residents – there is no such thing as a ‘private’ adoption in the UK. The relevant officials from social services must be involved, and it would be against their equal opportunity policies to work with organisations which discriminate. All adoptions are paid for publicly
I think the right decision was made as adoption is part of the public sphere
RIW
‘As a teacher I know how cruel children can be. Imagine a child living with same sex parents.. they would be bullied and ridiculed.’
True. Shame upon the bullies, and shame upon anyone who condones the bullying. Not so long ago, mixed-race children faced similar ridicule.
The bullies were wrong then, and they are wrong now. All people of goodwill should stand up to them.
“The Society shall provide adoption services only to heterosexuals and only in accordance with the tenets of the Roman Catholic church”. Now… Speaking as an adopted child – is it not to the c h i l d r e n these people pretend to “provide” their “services”? My opinion is that they (and local governments) steal the children of the poor to put them in household that are damaged by their sterility to the point of dysfunction. In Sweden (according to statistics on the homepage of one of the private adoption facilitating organisations) no less than 1/3 of adopted… Read more »
At the end of the day,as a Catholic I have to follow the Church. There are so many moral dilemmas and I am glad that I have the Church to put me right. This is for me is the humility of submitting to God’s truth. For instance I have been invited to the marriage of a good friend who is divorced. Do I put my loyalty to her first or to the Church and the Law of Christ? However bad you think the Catholic Church is, at least its Magisterium is consistent.There will always be scandals but God has endowed… Read more »
“As a teacher I know how cruel children can be. Imagine a child living with same sex parents.. they would be bullied and ridiculed.”
How odd then, that my 2 children are happily adjusted, very popular at school and that our house is teeming with their friends.
We must be the wrong kind of same sex family.
RIW There’s a lot of muddled thinking in your last post. You are perfectly free to accept the RC dogmas as truth, but you still have to recognize that they are not seen as truth by everyone and that the State, which by definition serves all its citizens, cannot be bound by them. So whether you attend your friend’s wedding is entirely down to your own conscience. But adoption is a service provided with the help of state finance, i.e. all our finance, potentially to all children. We do not have private adoption in Britain, so it cannot be possible… Read more »
Hmmm, this whole case is confusing. In USA we have or used to have in some places, a guideline called, in the best interests of the child. That means, this particular child in these circumstances; not some categorical abstraction, called, The Child. I get more than a deep whiff of this difference when I read about this case. The party line about how straights are always great for children, while gays are always dodgy if not outright damaging is just a neat, categorical abstraction than happens to fit nicely with the flat earth negatives to which many religious leaders feel… Read more »
“My personal opinion may be flawed but never the definitive voice of him, who was told, ” confirm my brethren. As a teacher I know how cruel children can be. Imagine a child living with same sex parents.. they would be bullied and ridiculed” – Robert I Williams – Robert, It may be that in a Roman Catholic school, because of the official party-line, the child of same-sex parents would be bullied. But in the world outside of Roman Catholicism, many chidren have learned to deal with homophobia, and may not be so ready to criticise their peers on this… Read more »
Since every other adopted person seems to be weighing in on the institution, I’ll do it as well. I was put up for adoption in the late 1950’s, and raised by loving parents. Although the records were sealed, I managed to get my birth records out of the hospital I was born in during a period in which I worked there. I’m in contact with my biological (half-) siblings, who are lovely and charming people. And the more I learn about my biological mother, the more grateful I am that she had no part in raising me. Adoption worked out… Read more »
‘As a teacher I know how cruel children can be. Imagine a child living with same sex parents.. they would be bullied and ridiculed.’
“As a teacher,” do you have any kids in same-sex households in any of your classes? My little brother in the Big Brother Big Sister program has two moms, and he’s extremely well-adjusted, well-behaved, gets good grades, and overall is a happy kid.
I’m not a catholic as such, but how can it be (as is claimed above) against catholic principles to exclude GLBT people from the ambit of this particular service i.e. adoption? First of all, marriage is (surprise?) unfailingly shown to be far and away the best environment for bringing up children, in terms of success rates, stability, disruptiveness/crime rates. In normal circumstances to avoid a married couple (and there are very large numbers to choose from) would therefore be discriminatory to the child. Of course we are talking averages, as we have to, since aggregates (aggregate of happiness, stability etc)… Read more »
Hi Fr Ron-
The word ‘parent’ comes from the Latin for giving birth. Etymologically there can therefore be no such thing as an adoptive parent of any gender. It is therefore *doubly* the case that there can be no such thing as a pair of adoptive parents of the same gender, since in the real world that is not only an etymological but also (more relevantly) a biological impossibility. That is the elephant in the room.
I’m delighted adoption worked out for BillyD – I have adopted friends in pretty much all categories: great relationships with both birth and adoptive relatives, adoptive parents frozen into dysfunction by infertility and other issues, awful birth families they wouldn’t be safe mixing with as adults, the works. Some individuals work wonders even in a horrible system. I think the point is the systems have always been flawed and operating on false pretences. Just for example: In the UK adopted children were given normal birth certificates which didn’t mention adoption and a separate adoption certificate (with no identifying information). There… Read more »
Goran: “household that are damaged by their sterility to the point of dysfunction.” Ah, yes, the heterosexual imperative: reproduce to prove you are a valid human being. Try saying, in a room full of strangers, that you don’t want children. The conversation quickly goes from, “Oh, you don’t mean that” to “Oh, it’s different when they’re your own” to (and this from absolute strangers) “I think you’d make a great father” to “You’re just being selfish”. Observation that this last is true, and is a very good reason NOT to have children leaves them speechless. I do this from time… Read more »
Christopher
That catholics are right to believe in their beliefs isn’t being questioned.
What isn’t catholic is to allow single people to adopt against catholic principles, but then to claim those same catholic principles when it’s about lgbt people.
But the real point being made is that they have no right to impose those beliefs on others in society when they are performing a public service using public funds.
It really isn’t that difficult to understand.
Christopher
what are you saying – that because the etymology of a word gave it a different meaning from the one it is generally assumed to have now, it is impossible for 2 same sex people to care for children that are not their own, or only the physical own of one of them?
That’s not an elephant in the room, that’s a non-sequitur.
“In the UK adopted children were given normal birth certificates which didn’t mention adoption…”
This was also the case with adoptions in the US.
“Etymologically there can therefore be no such thing…”
What a lucky thing, then, that we settle complicated social issues by pedantic etymological arguments. Oh, wait…
RIW, the more that you—lost in your own subjectivity, like the rest of us—swoon&gush over the Magisterium, the more I’m hearing “Obey the Flying Spaghetti Monster!”
I’m just sayin’, dude: you’re hurting your cause.
Like Christopher Shell (on a thread below), you want “Reality, Not Religion”.
Sorry, that’s not an option.
There’s only FAITH (and hence, religion). In what/Whom will you choose to have Faith (i.e., trust)?
We ALL make that subjective leap: you, RIW, no more or less than Richard Dawkins. In my POV, both you and Dawkins—in your absolutes—are lacking.
I’m sticking w/ the Via Media.
This is probably just my Laodicean Anglicanism, but it seems to me that both sides are being rather unnecessarily dogmatic on this issue. If this were the Anglican Church, the adoption agencies would politely turn a blind eye to the sexuality of their clients, while loudly protesting that they do exactly the opposite, and the government would conspicuously ignore the whole thing. That is the Anglican way of doing things. If only the Catholics had our unique talent for principled disingenuousness! But no – they needs must force the issue and turn it into some dramatic showdown between Church and… Read more »
Hi Erika- My point is related to that but slightly different. You draw attention to the well-known ‘etymological fallacy’ that words must always mean the same as what they originally meant. Clearly words can change meaning – but it needs to be added that when they do so this is often to be explained by a misunderstanding of their proper meaning and/or a conforming of their proper meaning to present cultural norms. There is no reason on earth why one should prefer the interpretation of someone who misunderstands to that of someone who understands a meaning. But that point applies… Read more »
Christopher The big problem I’m having with all your arguments here is that you are developing theories based on something you have not experienced and that you base your musings purely on your own thoughts without taking into account the actual experience of the many many same sex couples who act as parents, nor that of the children they have raised and are raising. In contrast, for the last 15 years I have actually lived that life you’re speculating about. I don’t need to wonder whether it is etymologically possible that I am my children’s mother and that their co-parent… Read more »
” To do so gives carte blanche to the real parents…”
I am doing a very good job controlling my typing right now so that I don’t write something unpublishable.
My adoptive parents WERE my real parents, Dr Shell. They were the ones that took me in when I was abandoned, loved me, fed and clothed me, educated me. They may not have fit your horribly narrow etymological/biological definition of what a parent is, but luckily neither you nor the OED are the final arbiters of reality.
“Flying Spaghetti Monster”
Are you on FARK ever, JCF?
RIW: what the catholic church chooses to do internally is its own business. Once they start to work in the public sphere, then that is something quite different.
I see no reason why the bigotry of your church should be given ‘respect’ just because of what the organisation is. I also find it mildly amusing that anyone is prepared to stop thinking for themselves. I don’t believe, and never will believe, that any organisation can tell me what to think.
Why is there one law allowing discrimination for the so-called Church of England and another disallowing it for the Catholic Church. Disgraceful.
The entire matter of adoptions with non-straight single parents and same sex couples arose, because of the nexus of two factors. One, foster children were languishing in generic care, and studies showed this was risky, even damaging in many instances. The main global damaging factors all clustered around the impermanency of the FC placements; and the slightly higher statistical risks of abuse or neglect, since such impermanent placements often involved contexts which more or less hindered attachment. Hindering attachment in the several developmental phases of childhood is a huge issue, and people who care about children no longer with parents,… Read more »
RIW
There is no provision in the laws relating to discrimination that favours the Church of England over any other religious body. The rules for the RC Church are exactly the same as the rules for the CofE, for the Methodist Church, or indeed for other faiths.
I think you know that.
RIW
There is a law allowing the CoE to discriminate against gay couples right to adopt, but not allowing the catholic church to do the same?
Please tell us more about it.
Give it two or three generations and you may be faced with a considerable amount of cloning, exowombs, children raised by artificial intelligences, etc. etc. In what state do you think any of the churches will be to comprehend and accommodate such things if currently, for all our apparent learning and erudition, we are getting pretty well tied up in knots over the origins and applicability of terms in regard to still quite mundane patterns of reproduction and modes of upbringing that don’t even begin to assault our more or less plain notions of human identity and personality? Is there… Read more »
Yes indeed, why not, Merseymike? Considering the current fracas over human sexuality, maybe there should be a Theological working group or other “out there” ;=) As to the semantic questions… Neo Platonism operates with a strange Idea of Words being static little objects, like Danish Legos. It’s the Platonist Idea of the Un-changeable, Un-reachable, Un-movable, Un-moved Mover; the Im-personal Highest Being. Anti-God. If that were at all true, we would have to pronounce every syllable, if not letter, to make us at all understood. Everyone who knows a thing about languages knows this is not true. On the contrary; Language… Read more »
Hi Erika- There are so many questions to be answered: (1) Whatever happened to their real parents? Do you approve of their real parents taking no responsibility for their own flesh and blood? (2) ‘Same sex adult couples are raising children and have been doing so for many years’. Who ever denied that? You know that I know that. We were talking about whether this was a good thing or not and you changed the topic to whether it is *happening* or not. We all know it is happening, otherwise we would not be having this conversation in the first… Read more »
“Is there anyone in any of the churches preparing theologically for the social and biological impact of such possibilities? If not, why not?!” Because the church appears to only ever deal with ideals – one happy Mum, one happy Dad, 2 happy children, both parents living long enough to care for their offspring in smiling harmony. Everything else is condemned as immoral. And you don’t need to make special provisions for the immoral, it’s their own fault and they could come back into the fold if they wanted to. It will be a wonderful day when the church finally takes… Read more »
“Because the church appears to only ever deal with ideals – one happy Mum, one happy Dad, 2 happy children, both parents living long enough to care for their offspring in smiling harmony.”
You forgot the dog out doing it’s tricks in the front yard, Erika.
Christopher 1. I have no idea. Some parents die. Other parents are for other reasons no longer able to look after their children, illness being a major one. People with mental breakdowns often cannot care for their children. A little less blanket condemnation and a little closer look at facts would help here. Others clearly are not finding parenting easy and maybe should never have had children in the first place. Whether I approve of the real parents or not is completely beside the point. The point is that there are children who need to be placed with families that… Read more »
“Your adoptive parents were not your parents…” Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?* It is simply not your place to tell me my relationship to my late parents. The government under which I live recognizes them as my parents; the Church in which they had me baptized recognizes them as my parents. Even if that were not the case, my heart recognizes them as my parents. Any idiot can father a child or give birth; many have. Parenting requires much, much more. I find it contemptible that, in your… Read more »
I do find the typical insistence of conservative points of view nagging and odd and cold – that categories (and negative categories at that) must trump real persons, real parenting and child growth facts, and of course real ethical goods in the parenting of children by gay folks. Do we not have the NT Jesus telling us that Sabbaths are made for humanity; not humanity imprisoned in Sabbath observances? Surely, if our categories of theological anthropology (so presuppositionally framed) are true and correct, the facts will bear them out. Mentioning large population statistics is all well and good, so far… Read more »