Adoption, Same-Sex Marriage and the Catholic Church

Some may remember that around this time last year Catholic Charities ended their long standing role as an adoption agency in Massachusetts. The impetus was a new law passed by the State that called for an end to the practice of discriminating against same-sex couples in granting adoptions. When faced with the decision of whether or not to continue offering adoptions under the new anti-discrimination law, Catholic Charities discontinued their program. It was indeed a sad occasion, a loss not only for Catholic Charities, but the entire state. And certainly in Massachusetts the debate as to whether shutting down was the appropriate response, or what other responses may have been available, continues.

I hadn’t thought much about this issue since the decision last March until I came across an article on the blog of the journal First Things. The article by Junior Fellow Ryan T. Anderson does not address the case here in Massachusetts, but a similar scenario unfolding today in the United Kingdom. New anti-discrimination laws have passed which make it illegal for the Catholic Church to discriminate against same-sex couples in determining suitable parents for adoptions. After a failed attempt to seek exemption, it has been ruled that the Church must comply by the end of 2008.

Ryan T. Anderson asserts that the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom is the victim of “a secular-liberal moralism.” He suggests that although it is usually Christians who are accused of using moralism as a defense against practices it disagrees with, the government of the United Kingdom is now the one using moralism for its own purposes. The difference, of course, is that the government does not derive its morals from any religious body, but its own secular and, Anderson believes, liberal ideals.

As I read this article, it seemed a bit too convenient to turn the argument generally used against us “conservative religious people” back on the government of the United Kingdom. The question I asked of myself, and to Mr. Anderson was this, is a law banning discrimination based on sexual identity a kind of moralism that is distinctively secular and liberal?

The issue is not whether or not this law, called the Equality Act, reflects a form of moralism, for  certainly it does. In fact, the Archbishop of Westminster affirms that discrimination is a matter of morality in a letter to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet regarding the Act, “The Catholic Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual.” Obviously the Church affirms that it is immoral to participate in discrimination against homosexuals. However, if Catholic adoption agencies choose not to discriminate, they must compromise other strongly held convictions, namely that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Compromise is also not an acceptable option.

Either way, however, the moral issue arises from within the Church, not from any seperate, secular-liberal pressure. And not, really, even from the government. Certainly this new law is the catalyst behind the need to make a decision, but does it not seem clear that this is a decision that the Church has been making for many years?

As long as the Church has been providing adoptions, and not offering these adoptions to same-sex couples, it has been choosing one moral over another. It has, in effect, been choosing to uphold its belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman over its condemnation of “unjust discrimination…against people who are homosexual.”

In his letter, the Cardinal pointed out that agencies are required “to recruit and approve appropriate married and single people to meet the needs of children.” Notice that single people are included. At some point a decision was made to not discriminate against single people, even though the church holds the belief that “children do best with both a mother and a father,” as Anderson puts it. Was the decision to grant adoptions to single people made because of “secular-liberal moralism,” or the Church’s own understanding of discrimination?

In light of this, the fact that the Church is seeking an exemption on the grounds that it is the victim of discrimination based on religious beliefs is an afterthought. Indeed when the Cardinal says, “We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service,” it is a bit redundant. In discriminating against homosexuals, it has already acted against one teaching of the Church in favor of another.

It seems clear to me that the Church is the victim of its own moralism. And it’s stuck, as is Catholic Charities here in Boston. Concluding his letter to Blair, the Cardinal writes, “It would be an unnecessary tragedy if legislation forced the closure of these adoption services, thereby significantly reducing the potential resources of adoptive families for the approximately 4,000 children currently waiting for adoption placements.” I agree that it is a tragedy, but perhaps “inevitable” as opposed to “unnecessary” is the correct adjective. When faced with the decision of which moral issue it will choose to violate, the Church must choose not to choose. And perhaps the program must close, but surely there are other ways for the Church to be involved that won’t necessitate a compromise on either front.