Article (John Richardson): Gravy for the gander? Anglicans, Rome and gay adoption

As will be well-known to readers of this blog, the Roman Catholic Church in England is taking a stand on the principle that its adoption agencies ought not to be required by the Sexual Orientation Regulations to place children with gay individuals or couples. Three cheers, in my view, for Rome.

This morning, however, came the news that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have written to the Prime Minister, apparently in support of this stand, warning him that, "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning."

Three cheers for Canterbury and York, you might feel. But not so fast. Despite the BBC's headline, Churches unite over adoption row, this is by no means a united front on the principle of gay adoption.

It is often forgotten that the Church of England has its own adoption agency, now known as "The Children's Society", but in reality "The Church of England Children's Society" (see the link here), which dropped its own ban on gay adoption in 1999.

At the time, a spokesman recognized there would be "mixed views among volunteers and staff", as well as some danger of a loss of support. However, it was clearly assumed that delicate consciences in the Society and in the wider Church simply had to adjust. Whether any other bishops objected at the time is hard to recall, but apparently not the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Jim Thompson, who chaired the board of Trustees which took the decision. It also seems that neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor York have had problems with the adoption policy of their own agency since then.

One might presume, then, that sauce for the Anglican goose ought to be sauce for the Roman gander, and that the message of the Archbishops to their Roman colleagues would be "Get used to it, we already did."

So what are Messrs Williams and Sentamu really doing? Are they supporting the Roman Catholic Church's stand, as many seem to assume? Or are they in fact making a subtle distinction between matters of conscience and a point of principle? In other words, are they really saying to Tony Blair, "You shouldn't force people to go against religious conscience, whatever that may dictate and despite the fact that we ourselves take a different view"? (Our three cheers are rapidly dropping to two, or maybe even just one.)

That would, indeed, appear to be the case, except that in their own letter they write that, "It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest."

Vulnerable to what, though? Clearly neither Abp Williams nor Abp Sentamu believe children are 'vulnerable' to adoption by gay persons, otherwise they would put their own house in order. The point at issue here is surely not the children but the adults, who would be required by Government legislation to act against conscience. The Roman Catholic Church is not proposing to remove children under its care to a place of 'safety', but to close its agencies, leaving the children to the doubtless otherwise competent care of other agencies.

We are left, then, with a situation in which the Archbishops of Canterbury and York seem to be either confused or confusing. Either they have forgotten what has happened in their own backyard, or they are striking a very different pose in reality from that which might be assumed. Worse than that, however, if it is realized where the Church of England itself stands on this issue, they may very easily seem to be simply hypocritical.

John Richardson

As a PS to this post, you can listen to Archbishop John Sentamu being interviewed on Radio 4. The interview concludes with this exchange:

Interviewer: The Cardinal is a leader of a church in this country which teaches that homosexuality is a sin; that is not a view you share, do you?

Sentamu: No. But it doesn’t mean, it doesn’t mean that on this particular issue about adoption agency he hasn’t got a case. I think he’s made his case [obscured] rather carefully ...

Interviewer: [Cutting in] But you’re not supporting him on the grounds that you share a view of that sexual orientation as being inherently sinful?

Sentamu: The Church of England is very clear that sexual orientation is not sinful. What the Church of England then goes on to say [sic] that homosexual genital acts actually fall short of the glory of God like adultery and fornication and they require repentance. But pure being oriented in a particular way should not bar anybody from anything, I mean that’s very clear.