Religious Conscience vs The Rights of the Child

The organisation Catholic Care has lost an appeal to be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to finding adoptive parents for children.

Ever since the introduction of the anti-discrimination laws people have been aware of the potential issues of people's legal obligations coming into conflict with their religious consciences. And this is a key example.

There will be many Catholics, particularly those involved in this organisation, who will be saddened or angered by the idea that they cannot exclusively allow heterosexual couples to adopt. Their perspective is that the Bible's passages on homosexuality are sufficient to suggest that God does not approve of it. I have a few thoughts on this.

The first is that there are still many Catholics, and Christians of other denominations, who do not feel this way. They may feel that God's love and acceptance is unconditional, and that the ambiguity of most of the Biblical passages suggests that we cannot assert adamantly that God is anti-gay.

What is also important to note is that the Bible does not mention same-sex couples, and likewise has nothing to say on gay adoption. Admittedly, it would have been unheard of in the times of Paul or the authors of the books of the law, but the fact remains that it is not mentioned.

But it is a fact that opinion is divided on this issue, and one cannot expect everyone to agree on this. For those who do disagree, it is worth remembering that Jesus himself spoke of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's; in this instance, the law demands that organisations do not discriminate, and in this case this has, legally, to be observed.

What may be of comfort to those who struggle is that, irrespective of their views on homosexuality, children from broken homes and living in care have new opportunities to go to a home and be brought up by two people who love them, and love each other.

Furthermore, giving a child to a gay couple would not be suggested by any part of the Bible to be sinful, and it is difficult to conceive of God punishing someone for obeying the law of the land in this instance.

An Interesting Day

What an interesting day of headlines. Two major news stories have been reported with regards to the relationship between the Church and the homosexual community.

Firstly, I was delighted to read that the Catholic Church has, at long last, praised the work of the late and truly great Oscar Wilde. One of the true literary geniuses, and indeed prominent characters in all of time, Wilde has long been 'taboo' for the Catholic Church - for he was, as most will know, also a notorious homosexual. Being gay even now is a rather dodgy issue for many - but in the nineteenth century it was literally criminal.

The Catholic Church have applied reason and have clearly agreed that maybe praising a man's genius isn't condoning his lifestyle after all. Irrespective of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, the man contributed much to the world and actually converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. Had Shakespeare been gay, would the Catholic Church have harboured the same attitude towards him?

And the second item of news is, rather surprisingly, that at the Episcopal convention of Bishops in Anaheim, California, the US bishops' vote was an astonishing 104-30 in favour of the proposition to "collect and develop theological resources and liturgies" for blessing same-gender relationships, to be considered at the next convention in 2012. This will inevitably widen the gap between conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Will it inevitably lead to schism?

To me, we are already dividing ourselves by insisting on calling ourselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'. Why can't we find a middle ground? Why do conservatives have to be Bible-bashing anti-rationalists who interpret the entire Bible literally, and liberals be wishy-washy intellectuals who believe the entire thing is a metaphor? Can it not be that the Bible, being a complex library of 66 books crafted by numerous different authors across hundreds of years, is in fact an intricate combination of literal doctrine, cultural laws, allegory and historical accounts?

It is such a shame that we cannot simply agree as a Church that our centre is Jesus Christ, and that interpretations of other matters will inevitably differ - that is a fact of life. It is a shame also that we cannot focus on more pressing issues. The Bible is far more vocal in its commands to love others and feed the poor than it is on whether two people of the same gender can love one another. Jesus himself seems to be silent on the matter of homosexuality, and yet talks repeatedly about loving and serving others. If as a Church we began to focus more on such issues and less on comparatively insignificant matters, there might in fact be little to divide us after all.

Start "rethinking", says Blair

The reader will doubtless be aware of the former PM Tony Blair's comments regarding the Pope's stance on homosexuality, and his belief that the Catholic Church ought to start "rethinking" the issue, and become more liberal-minded.

Imagine my ambivalence towards this man and this incident as a partly but not entirely liberal Christian and Anglican, with views on homosexuality, Catholicism, and the place of politics in religion...and vice versa.

On the one hand, I agree, in the most part, with what Blair has said. I don't see it as being unfair to suggest that the Catholic Church might want to rethink its stance on an issue which it has held for centuries, irrespective of the distinctions between contextual and universal truths, or literal vs allegorical truths, or alternative perspectives of approach to particular Biblical passages. Furthermore, such strong anti-homosexual views as those expressed by Pope Benedict last December isolate ca. 10% of the population, and almost by default exclude them from the organisation - and for that reason, also, Blair's point is reasonably valid.

Hmmmm...

But on the other hand I do feel a little uncomfortable about Blair telling the Pope what to do. For a number of reasons.

1. He isn't PM any more. He's...actually, what is he now?
   
2. Even if he was, politics is somewhat "poking its nose" into the affairs of religion, which therefore begs the question, ought religion/the Church be entitled to have a greater influence in politics?
   
3. The word 'hypocrite' springs to mind (as do a number of other terms). It is interesting that now all of a sudden Blair has the boldness to take the moral high ground on an issue, when his views on potentially even more important affairs (abortion, for instance, is a biggie - a biggie for which Blair, I might add, expresses full support) are perhaps not as widely accepted as morally stable.

So, in summary: valid opinion, but expressed by an unsuitable spokesman!

The Importance of Inner Beauty

Wonders will never cease. Flicking through The Times today I discovered that a priest has organised a beauty contest...for nuns. The claim is largely that it is about spirituality...a contest of inner beauty rather than outer beauty.

But as the priest is 1) a human being and 2) a male, one can be forgiven for suspecting that, in reality, it is really about the physique. And it appears one is after all right to do so, as one reads on to discover Father Antonio Rungi's observations that nuns from Africa and Latin America were "really very, very pretty. The Brazilian girls, above all".

In other words, here is a contest disguised as a contest of spirituality, but that is, in reality, about the one thing that all beauty contests are about: rating the physique of women.

Despite this, it raised the philosopher in me, and got me thinking about the difference between outer and inner beauty. It is inevitable that human beings become captivated by physical beauty, whether it is the girl at the other end of the class, or that guy walking down the street. There is something overwhelming about it, isn't there?

So the question is, why is it inner beauty rarely has the same effect on us? Why is it that we merely remark over inner beauty, and yet we slip into a trance over outer beauty? Why is it we fall head over heels when it comes to the physical, but merely comment in passing on the inner?

Well, as is ever the case, Biblical authors were way ahead of me on this one. This verse from the first book of Samuel summarises my observations rather well:

"The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." [1 Sam 16]

However, all it does, of course, is observe. What I could really do with is a verse which tells us what we should be doing about it. Cue 1 Peter:

"Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight." [3:3-4]

In light of this verse the idea of nuns having inner beauty has a ring of truth...the "gentle and quiet spirit". And it certainly makes sense...a beautiful face may have aesthetic appeal, arouse one's eros for a short while, and such; but the inner beauty of a gentle spirit can bring peace, comfort and serenity.

So what am I saying? That we should train ourselves to stop noticing and being captivated by physical beauty, change our focus, etc.? Well, no, that would be sheer hypocrisy...but I am saying that maybe, once in a while, we might make more of an attempt to note, ponder and even bask in the inner beauty of those around us. I am positive that the rewards of such thinking are far longer-term, far greater, and far more widespread.