Is the Labour Party anti Catholic?

richardscorer Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.



He wrote in his letter of resignation: "As you know, I have always kept my Catholic faith a private and personal matter. My views on several aspects of the Human Fertisation and Embryology Bill, particularly the amendments relating to abortion, are sincerely and deeply held, and I respect and acknowledge that those who disagree with me hold equally sincere views. It is because of this that I found it unacceptable that units of Young Labour, including London Young Labour, organised and advertised events to campaign on one side of the argument, in what is, after all, an issue of conscience and not party politics".


 Some comments:


1.         Alistair Campbell once described himself as a “pro religious atheist”. I relate to that. I'm not a believer, but I've been influenced by religious views (working for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition in the US). Religion can be a valuable counterpoint to materialism. The Labour Party famously owes more the Methodism than to Marx.  I wouldn’t like the Labour Party to be hostile to religion per se. But I don’t think there is any real evidence that it is.

2.         “Anti Catholic” and “opposed to the leadership of the Catholic church” are not the same thing.  Many lay Catholics disagree with the Church’s stance on contraception and abortion.         

3.         McGinn is wrong to criticise Young Labour for having a position on abortion and campaigning on it; having positions on the issues of the day and arguing for them is what political parties are for.  Inevitably these will include stances which offend certain religious beliefs.  


4.         In my book, the Catholic church would win more respect and moral authority if it talked less about personal morality (given the child abuse scandals it is not ideally placed to preach anyway) and more about, for example, poverty. Like some of the US Catholics Bishops who indicted Bush over the treatment of the poor in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. 

Thoughts?  


tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? | 86 comments (86 topical)

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#1)

by e10rifles on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM GMT

Agree with most of that.

If your religious views override your loyalty to the fundamental principles of socialism and equality then it won't be much of a loss to Labour if you do the honourable thing and sod off to form a religious party.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#2)

by Josh FG on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM GMT

To say it is anti catholic is absurd, if it was against something because it is a trite of the catholic religion it would be a fair comment however the abortion debate is about women's rights something the Labour party have a history of supporting and the fact it does not agree with the Catholic religion is mealy coincidental!


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#3)

by doctordunc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:33:50 PM GMT

I know a remarkably large number of catholics and lapsed catholics in the Party (I fall into the latter category).  I would guess - but I don't know how easy it would be to prove - that Labour is the most catholic party of the 3 main ones.  Anybody fancy doing the research?


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#4)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM GMT

Of course we're not anti-Catholic but we prefer to fight against the bigotry of some of those who lead the Catholic Church. There's a very big difference between the two.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#5)

by otware on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:48:34 PM GMT

Labour is perfectly happy to entertain the likes of Ruth Kelly in government. It's just thankful that extreme views such as hers are not given the time of day in a progressive party, but the fact that she is in government at all I think proves there is no conspiracy against catholics.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#44)

by Red Maria on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:43:48 AM GMT

The Labour government is happy to have as talented an individual as Ruth Kelly in its ranks; not all Labour Party members or MPs are. I repeat, Ruth Kelly has been the subject of some of the most shameless anti-Catholic bigotry since Titus Oates. 
Otware's comments about Ruth Kelly's supposedly "extreme views" speak for themselves. I doubt he has any idea what her views are. She has never publically spoken about them. Still less is he in any position to characterise them as extreme. I think its obvious that Ruth Kelly isn't the one who holds extreme views.
Again, it's difficult to conduct a discussion on any kind of rational level if people smear practising Catholic cabinet ministers as extremists, wilfully parody the debate about anti-Catholicism as one of a "conspiracy" against Catholics - no one has used the word conspiracy about a bigotry which is so openly expressed - and make bizarre claims about people supposedly wanting the Labour Party to adopt an explicitly anti-abortion policy, when no one has done any such thing.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#46)

by otware on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:02:02 AM GMT

I don't object to Catholic cabinet members, there are a lot of them and that is not really the issue. I'm sure you are aware of Ruth Kelly's association with Opus Dei, a sect founded by a fascist Spanish priest who used to whip himself until he bled. Her brother is a member and she has refused to deny that she is a member. Nevertheless it is quite plain that she holds some views that would be considered unpalatable by many people, evidenced by her refusal to state her views on homosexuality.

You have to accept that people with faith who hold views that are controversial who are in politics open themselves up to criticism from those who don't hold their views. I'm not a catholic, I don't subscribe to the Opus Dei vision for humanity or any other religous doctrine for that matter. I know full well that many politicians are relgious, as are many ordinary people, but I object to that faith creeping into politics. I'm sorry but what you usually find in America and in Europe is that strict christians are a force for social conservatism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#62)

by Red Maria on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:57:23 AM GMT

You may or may not be aware that Opus Dei is not a proscribed organisation. You also may or may not be aware that Opus Dei does not teach anything the Roman Catholic does not teach. Various people are rumoured to be members of Opus Dei, including John Hume. Ruth Kelly does not have to confirm or deny whether she is a member of Opus Dei, that is a private matter for her and her alone. People who insist that religion is a purely personal matter must be consistent and should cease their impudent badgering of Ruth Kelly about her private life.
As for organisations founded by controversial characters, Marie Stopes, who founded the eponymous Marie Stopes clinics was a member of the British Eugenics Society with some decidedly unpalatable views on all sorts of things. She cut off her son because he married a woman who wore glasses. Those who imply, with little subtlety that Ruth Kelly is dodgy because she may or may not be a member of an organisation founded by a reactionary Spanish priest must again be consistent and trawl through the backgrounds of all MPs for membership of or association with any organisation founded by controversialists. They should also, by that same token, be ever vigilant that all sorts of controversial views, eugenics, say, don't creep into politics, or it may be thought that they are solely motivated by unthinking prejudices to people of faith.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#6)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:43:03 PM GMT

I should hope not, because some of the finest ever socialists have been christains: Keir Hardie, Martin Luther King Jr. etc.

But to be secular is different. Why I objected to the stance of many in the PLP recently, was that they failed to step up and say that while they had deep reservations personally, they would persuade women to not have abortions, but they wouldn't legislate against it. On the liberal-left spectrum of religious views: John Kerry holding personal views but saying he is in no position to legislate morality, or on the Lord Longford extreme, I would hope even the most religious could be on the John Kerry side.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#7)

by Ernesto on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:06:12 PM GMT

Its an interesting subject. I am a Catholic and my upbringing certainly informed my political belief. To say the party is anti-catholic is, in my opinion, utter tripe. What does however, sometimes happen is that  colleagues on each side of the debate in these issues can be intolerant of those who disagree with them. It cuts both ways. Its shouldnt be about religion, it should be about respecting each others differing views on a very difficult, issue where people have deeply held feelings and beliefs. 
Problems can occur when some colleagues make assumptions about why and how their colleagues with faith hold their opinions. Personally I dont care what led any of my comrades to socialism and what informs their opinions on policy.
It sounds a bit like spitting the dummy to resign in the circumstances described.
As for point 4 of Richards post, I would take more stock from  the lives and teachings of Oscar Romero and Helder Camara in South America than the Vatican.

    


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#8)

by matt1986 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:40:18 AM GMT

I suppose it would have been interesting to see if he resigned if those who shared his views had campaigned on his side.

It's fair enough to say that the Labour Party should have remained officially neutral on this particular piece of legislation, and that members for or against aspects of the legislation should have campaigned under different auspices, if they wanted to. But I don't see how he can then make the jump to say the party is anti-Catholic, just because some members campaigned the way they did.

That would assume that Catholic doctrine goes hand-in-hand with his position on this piece of legislation and that to oppose one you must oppose the other. But that's clearly not the case. There will be a range of views among Catholics, even if, admittedly, most would share the same view. And campaigners in favour of the legislation were acting on the basis of the evidence, not hatred of Catholicism. Anyway, if the two did go hand-in-hand - if Catholic doctrine was formally being put forward as a reason for why the legislation should be opposed - then his position would be being justified on the basis of religion, something that is completely unacceptable and should be campaigned against in any case.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#9)

by swatantra on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:23:57 AM GMT

You might as well ask: 'Is the Pope a Catholic'. Of course not! It was led by a 'catholic' for ten years. What the LP is is that it is anti-Arab, but that's another story.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#11)

by Ernesto on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:49:07 AM GMT

"if Catholic doctrine was formally being put forward as a reason for why the legislation should be opposed - then his position would be being justified on the basis of religion, something that is completely unacceptable and should be campaigned against in any case"
 
So religious belief as a basis for being a socialist is unacceptable?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#13)

by matt1986 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM GMT

No, certainly not. I thought you were absolutely right before when you said it doesn't matter what leads people to hold the political views they do.

In a secular society, however - or one essentially secular - we all have to make arguments that make sense to the other side, and can persuade everybody. So, for example, even if Catholicism informs the way you think on the HFE legislation, you need to frame your argument in terms non-Catholic people can relate to, since arguments based on your Catholic faith will obviously be unpersausive and irrelevant to non-Catholic people. If we all try to persuade each other on the basis of our faith, we will never get very far.

Now, this is exactly what most people against this legislation did, which is great. They didn't refer to their holy books, but talked instead, for instance, about the viability of foetuses after a certain number of weeks. Their argument may have been informed by their religion, which is fine, but they didn't officially put it forward as a reason why the legislation should not be passed. So, in this situation, it doesn't make sense to say those who are in favour of the Bill are anti-Catholic; everyone in the debate is having a legitimate argument based on the evidence. Catholicism may have informed some people's views on the issues, but it remained seperate. Everyone in the debate made their mind up on the basis of the evidence being put forward. Those in favour of the legislation disagreed with, for instance, the 'viability of foetuses' argument being put forward by opponents of the legislation, not their underlying Catholic faith.

However, to argue that those in favour of the legislation were being anti-Catholic, as the person who resigned was doing, you have to assume that Catholic teaching was officially put forward as a reason the legislation should be opposed. (If Catholic teaching wasn't put forward as a reason, then supporters of the legislation couldn't be anti-Catholic.) And what I was trying to say was that if this is the case - Catholic doctrine was officially being put forward as a reason to oppose the legislation - then this, itself, is very wrong. And if this is the case, we should be campaigning against those who want to justify their position on the basis on their religion.

Ultimately, I suppose I'm trying to make the point that if people were being anti-Catholic by the way they voted, this implies Catholicism was intimately a part of the argument against the legislation, and that this throws up a much more serious problem, more serious than whether or not the Labour Party is 'anti-Catholic'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#14)

by Ernesto on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:04:17 PM GMT

The issue that he resigned over was one which polarises people. I think it is extremely difficult to persuade people at the polar opposites of such issues. What one person may find to be an incontravertable truth (based on religious belief or not) may have no impact on someone taking the opposite opinion in any event. From the original post I do not see where he accuses Young Labour of being "anti catholic". He seems to resign over the issue of campaigning on something he regards as being an issue of conscience. Would he have done the same if they were campaigning against the legislation, I wonder?

I disagree with you that we all have to make arguments that make sense to the other side on suge hugely subjective, emotive issues. Again if someone finds that their opinion on the issue was more influenced by the stance of the their own faith, then that is a matter for them.

You state that you agree with my comments about the basis for political views and then go on to criticise those who may have adopted their view on the basis of doctrine as being "very wrong" and urge us to campaign against them. I find that contradictory. I am a socialist because of my catholic upbringing. I justify my socialism on the basis of my catholicism and vice versa. 

Our discussion here is isnt about catholicism per se, its about the right to hold your own views. A right which you seem to saying should be denied to people basing those views on religious belief.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#17)

by matt1986 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:44:58 PM GMT

You said:

"I do not see where he accuses Young Labour of being 'anti catholic'."

You're right. Neither do I. And I don't know what the full letter says. But I was just going off what was written in the original post, that he "has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice", and that it was members of the party's campaigning that he felt showed this prejudice. Of course, if he didn't say the campaigning was anti-Catholic, then I take back what I said. But I'm just going on what I've read so far.

"I disagree with you that we all have to make arguments that make sense to the other side on suge hugely subjective, emotive issues. Again if someone finds that their opinion on the issue was more influenced by the stance of the their own faith, then that is a matter for them."

I completely disagree. It's fine to be influenced by your religion - I'm no longer religious, but when I was, it influenced me; how could it not? - but I think it's really important that when you put forward arguments you do so in terms everyone can agree to and understand. Public policy can't be devised on the basis of people's religious beliefs that other people completely disagree with. Politics is about compromise and co-operation, and finding solutions to problems that affect us all. And since we're not all religious, or of the same religion, we need to frame things in terms of the here-and-now, in terms of the evidence available to all of us, not in terms of highers truths to which some people claim to have access.

"You state that you agree with my comments about the basis for political views and then go on to criticise those who may have adopted their view on the basis of doctrine as being 'very wrong' and urge us to campaign against them"

That's not what I was saying; I'm sorry if you thought I was arrogantly saying some people held 'wrong' beliefs. What is "very wrong" is people invoking their religious beliefs to argue for a particular policy. I'm not saying anything about the religious views themselves - they may be right or wrong - but I'm saying it's wrong to use them in support of policies. It would be the same for me. It would be wrong for me to say, "I'm an atheist/secularlist etc., therefore..."

"Our discussion here is isnt about catholicism per se, its about the right to hold your own views. A right which you seem to saying should be denied to people basing those views on religious belief."

Again, it's fine to hold views based on whatever you want, and I'm absolutely not denying the right to hold your own views to anybody. But you should still translate those views in to arguments everyone can accept and respect. This is for practical reasons more then anything. If you have got a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jew and an Atheist in a room, you will have four people who will be very uncompromising when it comes to certain things. So instead of going round, each person saying, "my god says this" or "well, my god says that", or, "there is no god, so we should do this", decisions should be made using arguments all can accept.

I recently read Barack Obama's 'The Audacity of Hope', and it confirmed to me that this is the way we should go forward. In it, he says:

"I have rarely heard God's name invoked during debate on the [Senate] floor...What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all...Politics, like science, depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality."

We've gone off topic a bit (although I don't mind at all). But this is just to illustrate my point about why religion shouldn't influence debate in a democracy and why, if it has indeed happened, Catholicism should not be used as a justification for a particular direction of policy. If those opposed to the HFE Bill have not invoked Catholicism, then that's fine and those in favour can't be anti-Catholic. And if they have, then there's a much bigger issue we need to be concerned about - that of using religious beliefs to justify arguments in debate.

(Sorry for the long post. I've just finished for the summer, and have got time on my hands!)


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#10)

by richardscorer on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:43:05 AM GMT

Anti Arab? I'm struggling to follow you on that one.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#19)

by swatantra on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:28:37 AM GMT

Well, lets put it this way, sickenly sychophantic of Israel. But thats the LP heirarchy; grassroots opinion is a bit more discerning.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#24)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM GMT

And I though that the LP was always groveling to the Arab's as they have most of the oil and money.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#34)

by otware on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:34:39 PM GMT

Yes there is that. I think the point being made is that the Labour leadership are anti-Palestinian, which is really just saying that they're on the same side as Israel most of the time - which is true of most of the western world really.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#12)

by Radford Mann on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM GMT

I suppose we should try to be clear what we mean by 'anti-Catholic.' Am I anti-Catholic? Well, yes to the extent that I disagree with most of the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, I am not anti-Catholic in the sense that I think Catholics should be barred from public office. So there is a clear distinction to be made between disagreement and discrimination. I'm all for disagreement, and against discrimination. What about the party?

If we look at the record of the Government I think we can see that rather than being anti-Catholic, the Government has gone out of its way to be pro-Catholic. Examples.

1. Abortion. This has been an issue where MPs have had a free vote to cater for the consciences of Catholic members despite the fact that no government would force a Catholic woman to have an abortion against her will. On this issue religion has trumped feminist concerns around choice in a situation where science and ethics can only offer guidance not solutions.

While on the free vote point, it's interesting that abortion, embryology and other 'Catholic issues' get a free vote while going to war in Iraq or replacing Trident are whipped votes. I confess I struggle to see why the former are matters of conscience and the latter not.

2. Faith Schools. Firstly the government has continued to fund Catholic schools, hardly discrimination against Catholics. Secondly, when Alan Johnson made a perfectly reasonable proposal that faith schools should admit 20% of pupils from a different faith position the full force of the Church was reigned against him and soon to be Catholic, PM Tony Blair slapped him down. Again, rather than being anti-Catholic, this seems to me to be excessively pro Catholic; discrimination in their favour. 

3. Embryo Research. Again the concerns of Catholic MPs were indulged, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of the benefits that would flow from the research. Rather than being anti-Catholic, the government preferred to be anti science. 

So to answer the question posed: Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Absolutely not. Indeed, for me, the preferences and sensibilities of the Catholic Church are somewhat overindulged by the Labour Government. 


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#15)

by otware on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:57:16 PM GMT

I agree with this. Let's be honest, if Labour were anti-Catholic would Ruth Kelly have ever been offered a ministerial position, or even been allowed to stand as a Labour candidate?

I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion by people who somehow think that the Labour Party should make it policy to oppose abortion. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#43)

by Red Maria on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:08:24 AM GMT

Anyone who cites Ruth Kelly to support their contention that there is no anti-Catholicism in the Labour Party instantly torpedoes their own argument. Ruth Kelly has been the target of some of the most vitriolic anti-Catholic bile seen in recent times.
No one but no one has anywhere suggested that the Labour Party should adopt a policy opposing abortion. It's difficult to conduct a rational discussion about anti-Catholicism if people insist on making things up with such impunity.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#42)

by Red Maria on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:49:01 AM GMT

However, I am not anti-Catholic in the sense that I think Catholics should be barred from public office.

Good, neither should any democrat. But Labour MEP Mary Honeyball questioned whether Roman Catholics should be discriminated against in public life. She made abundantly clear what she thought the answer to that particular conundrum was.

So there is a clear distinction to be made between disagreement and discrimination. I'm all for disagreement, and against discrimination. What about the party?

Officially the party is for fairness and equality. But its silence on Honeyball's disgraceful comments has been deafening.

If we look at the record of the Government I think we can see that rather than being anti-Catholic, the Government has gone out of its way to be pro-Catholic.

I think it's fair to say that many practising Roman Catholics would find that assertion literally incredible.

1. Abortion. This has been an issue where MPs have had a free vote to cater for the consciences of Catholic members despite the fact that no government would force a Catholic woman to have an abortion against her will. On this issue religion has trumped feminist concerns around choice in a situation where science and ethics can only offer guidance not solutions.

Matters concerning the beginning and end of human life, including for example capital punishment have always been regarded as matters of conscience for all MPs, not just Roman Catholics. I don't see how religion has trumped feminist concerns - and not all feminists are pro-choice by any means - when abortion has been legal in the UK for the last 40 years.

While on the free vote point, it's interesting that abortion, embryology and other 'Catholic issues' get a free vote while going to war in Iraq or replacing Trident are whipped votes. I confess I struggle to see why the former are matters of conscience and the latter not.

That is an argument for more, not fewer free votes, something many, probably most practising Roman Catholic politicians would support. The Roman Catholic Church was vigorous in her opposition to both Trident and Gulf Wars I and II. Those who argue that the Iraq War and Trident should have been matters of free conscience votes would be more credible if they unequivocally supported those demanding conscience votes over the HFE Bill.

2 Faith Schools. Firstly the government has continued to fund Catholic schools, hardly discrimination against Catholics. Secondly, when Alan Johnson made a perfectly reasonable proposal that faith schools should admit 20% of pupils from a different faith position the full force of the Church was reigned against him and soon to be Catholic, PM Tony Blair slapped him down. Again, rather than being anti-Catholic, this seems to me to be excessively pro Catholic; discrimination in their favour. 

Alan Johnson's suggestion that Catholic schools should turn away Catholic pupils - which is what it amounted to - was self-evidently unreasonable. Roman Catholic schools are funded not just by the state but by ordinary, pew Catholics who put their money into the collection tins at the end of Mass. They do not do this for Catholic pupils to be turned away from the schools they have funded. The "full force of the Church" that reigned against these plans, which were nowhere mentioned in the party's election manifesto, by the way, were the countless ordinary Catholics, that is members of the electorate, who wrote to their MPs making plain their opposition to them. Those who say they want non Catholics to be able to go to Catholic schools should argue for a radical expansion of Catholic schools, which are already oversubscribed, to meet demand.

3. Embryo Research. Again the concerns of Catholic MPs were indulged ...

Catholic and non Catholic MPs with concerns about the HFE Bill can hardly have been said to have been "indulged" when they weren't even originally allowed a free vote! Catholic cabinet ministers, no less, had to threaten resignation in order to secure free votes on second reading. They're still expected to vote with the government on third reading.
I repeat, matters concerning the beginning and end of human life are always by convention given a free vote. That a free vote was for the first time ever, denied Labour MPs is strong evidence of a disregard for Roman Catholics at the very highest levels of the party.

... despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of the benefits that would flow from the research. Rather than being anti-Catholic, the government preferred to be anti science. 

There was no "overwhelming" scientific evidence of the benefits which would flow from the research, rather there was an overwhelming flood of emotive propaganda from pro-embryo research scientists as there always is, claiming that there would be miracle cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers, MS and on and on. Strangely unmentioned went the fact that so far embryonic stem cell research has not yielded a single cure or therapy for any disease, whereas adult stem cell research has yielded at least 72. Moreover, the voices of equally eminent scientists, such as Professor Neil Scolding, a stem cell expert at Bristol Frenchay Hospital, who say that embryonic stem cell research is both unecessary and outdated and that human animal hybrid embryos were equally unecessary, were ignored. Also glossed over was the evidence of the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson who said of human animal hybrids:
 “it was felt…there was no clear scientific benefit; there was no clear scientific argument as to why you would want to do it"

Is there a strong current of anti-Catholicism in the party? Undoubtedly. Alan Johnson advanced plans to compromise Roman Catholic schools. Catholic adoption agencies are being forced to close down unless they cease to be Roman Catholic. The cabinet battle over the fate of Catholic adoption agencies was marked by anti-Catholic briefings to journalists such as those snidely referring to the "Catholic tendency" in the cabinet, clearly aimed at Ruth Kelly who has been the target of antidiluvian anti-Catholic vituperation ever since she became a cabinet minister. The government denied its own MPs a free vote on the HFE Bill in clear breach of the parliamentary convention that matters concerning the beginning and end of human life are subject to free votes. And most recently, Mary Honeyball questioned whether Roman Catholics should be discriminated against in public life.

It isn't just ordinary Roman Catholic Labour Party members who find all this disgraceful; Catholic - and for that matter a few non-Catholic - Labour parliamentarians are increasingly alarmed by the climate of anti-Catholic bigotry running unchecked in the party.

Quite how the party thinks all this will attract and retain Catholic voters is unclear. Voters who feel parties despise them don't elect them; they punish them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#54)

by Radford Mann on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM GMT

Dear Red Maria,

Thank you for a thought provoking reply. I don't propose to keep coming back to this issue and I yield to you the last word if you wish it. However, I think I would like to make one or two points in response to you. You have been careful in your posts on this topic to draw a distinction between practising Catholics and nominal or lapsed Catholics. I agree that this is a reasonable distinction and so in these remarks I have in mind only practising Catholics.

Firstly, I haven't read Ms. Honneyball's comments and I have no intention of commenting on them. However, the topic was is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? I would not wish to conflate Ms. Honneyball and the Labour Party. Even if you put the worst possible construction on her comments the most that could be said is that the party has at least one anti-Catholic member. One could not draw the inference, from the remarks of one woman, that the party was anti-Catholic. I'm sure you could find lots of party members who, as individuals, were anti- lots of things - womens' rights, homosexuals, one or more ethnic minority or national groups. It's even rumoured that some party members are anti-socialist. However, that does not mean that the party is anti-any of these things. Apart from socialism, of course!

Secondly, you argue that many practising Catholics would find my view that the government has gone out of its way to accommodate Catholic opinion as 'literally incredible.' Fine, I'm sure you're right. However, the subjective experience of a group, in this case practising Catholics, is not the same as the objective reality. I maintain that the government has not discriminated against Catholics and has sought to accommodate the preferences of Catholic MPs. In addition, in continuing to maintain Catholic schools and in dropping proposals to oblige them to take a proportion of non-Catholic children, the government has been pro-Catholic and accorded the faith (and some other faiths) a privilaged position in society. On reflection, my use of 'pro-Catholic' in my original post was a bit broad. Perhaps you will be so kind as to permit me a little rhetorical leeway in that use, and accept this clarification as a clearer statement of my position? 

Thirdly, on free votes generally, my clumsily made point was that the idea that free votes are given on the basis of an issue being one of conscience is a fallacy. Phil Cowley makes a strong case here. What I would add to Phil's analysis is that parties do try to show respect to religious positions by granting free votes on issues like abortion where those issues hold a central or symbolic importance in the teaching of the church. In showing such respect parties, once more, privilage the religious over the secular.

Lastly, and bearing in mind your distinction between practising and non-practising Catholics, I have given some thought to positions that such Catholics might be expected to hold. It seems to me that a practising Catholic may reasonably be expected to hold at least some of the following:

1. Be opposed to abortion or at least desire to see great restrictions on its availability.

2. Be against homosexuality. Politically I would expect this to be manifested in opposition to civil partnerships, equalisation of the age of consent, and adoption by homosexuals.

3. Be opposed to embryo research.

I think you would have to concede that the majority of Labour Party members tend not to be against abortion, support the granting of rights to homosexuals and probably also support embryo research. You might see that as being anti- Catholic. I see it as a disagreement among comrades in the same way as we may disagree over 42 day detention, ID cards, Trident, whatever. The disagreement is on the issues. On abortion, for example, I undertand that muslims are against it. Does that mean that the party is anti-muslim?

I'm fairly sure that over the years I must have voted for Catholic party members to fill positions within the party. Oddly, I don't make a habit of asking people what their faith position is before deciding if I'm going to support them. I return to the original point I made in my first post. Within the party there will be disagreements. That is good and healthy. I am against discrimination against Catholics, Muslims or any group, and I see no evidence that the party is anti-Catholic in that sense. If you think that Catholic positions are a minority view in the party, then you are probably right. Similarly, those of us who would accept the label 'socialist' are also in a minority at the moment. So from one minority to another, I offer comradely wishes and fraternal greetings.

Radford Mann 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#56)

by richardscorer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:36:56 PM GMT

I agree with Radford Mann- I have never voted either for or against an individual within the party on the basis of their religious faith, nor do I know any other members who would do so. I would add that , of course, there are disagreements, sometimes quite major ones, between practising Catholics- as mentioned in my other comment how many practising Catholics would agree with Cormac Murphy O Connor's absolutist stance on abortion?    


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#16)

by NB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:36:24 PM GMT

There is clearly a strand of aggressive secularism in the Labour party, which seems to be particularly anti-Catholic. For example I believe you had to be pro-Abortion to get on Emily's list.  Equally there are a number of prominent Catholics at present in senior Labour positions (Des Browne and Michael Martin in addition to Ruth K). So there's a bit of a tension - it's a Party after all. Need to watch it though - it's not a great moment for Labour to be alienating people.


Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#18)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:18:58 PM GMT

Why do you call it 'aggressive secularism'? It's just secularism.

I could just as easily say that the Tory party is in the hands of the aggressive religious right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#20)

by NB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:07:18 PM GMT

Secularism is (roughly) the idea that all religious views and none should be equally respected.  Aggressive secularism is the idea that people with religious views should not be allowed to act on them politically (usually: if they disagree with the views of the secularist in question). So for example secularists are content with faith schools but aggressive secularists would like them abolished or emasculated.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#28)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM GMT

I don't know where you got that idea from!

Secularists generally wouldn't believe in faith schools at all. I think this is just gross exaggeration on your part because you're not a secularist.

I could just as easily call everyone who supports faith schools 'fundamentalists'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#22)

by otware on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:12:02 AM GMT

I thought Emiliy's List was an American PAC/527 group that provides campaign finance for pro-choice candidates? What does it have to do with Britain?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#26)

by NB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:18:23 PM GMT

http://www.emilyslist.org.uk/about/grants.html

"Applications must fulfil Labour Party criteria; support the programme and values of the Party and be pro-choice." (italics added)


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:06:34 PM GMT

Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure there are many fundamentalist groups who fund anti-choice MP's.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#30)

by Ghost of Nye on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM GMT

Care to provide some evidence for that assertion, NM?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#32)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM GMT

Well first of all, I did not assert it as a fact, but stated my belief that this was the case. 

But nonetheless, there is evidence for it - watch the Despatches documentary from Channel 4 (I'm not sure if it's still available to download) and it shows fundamentalist groups organsing (and paying for) anti-choice meetings and rallies which were well intended by Tory anti-choice MP's. The fundamentalist group involved even wrote the amendment (and paid for all of the lawyers who drafted it) that Norman Tebbitt used in the Lords.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#33)

by Ghost of Nye on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:20:09 PM GMT

That was not the assertion made, NM - your point was whether such groups fund the electoral campaigns of Labour candidates in the way that Emily's List support candidates who declare themselves to be "pro-choice". 

And the answer to that is a resounding no.

As for the Despatches programme, looney right-wing groups such as the CCF can back the likes of Dorries et al. all they want - the level of difference they are likely to make is negligible.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#36)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM GMT

No, it isn't a 'resounding no'! I'm afraid I don't know the ins and outs of who funds every MP in the country, so I cannot give evidence of it.

But I presume it does happen. The far-right fundamentalist groups have money to burn.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#51)

by Ghost of Nye on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:41:19 AM GMT

Presumption is not enough, NM.  Unless you have any evidence to support your assertion that the electoral campaigns of certain MPs are being financed by pro-life groups in the same way that pro-abortion candidates are supported by Emily’s List, then you are merely speculating (incidentally, as your arguments are so short of evidence in this instance, a quick look through the register of member’s interests should see you right).


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#37)

by otware on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:17:05 PM GMT

I think it's a bit premature to claim the moral high ground here. The fact is that Emily's List makes little difference because of the strict regulations with regards to finance of individual candidates campaigns.

Why is it that Emily's list sponsoring candidates (with very little money btw) is dreadful and shows how terrible the pro-choice lobby are, and yet CCF can just be dismissed as playing a minor role? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#52)

by Ghost of Nye on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM GMT

Because leaving aside the fact that their (CCF/Nadine Dorries) campaigning skills are clearly non-existent, what the Tories get up to is neither the subject of discussion, or of any great interest – I’m more interested in the future of my own party. 
 
Now, in the case of Emily’s List - this group clearly favour certain candidates above others for reasons beyond policy.  So this is not a matter of occupying moral high ground, but an important issue of party principle: What would your opinion be for example if a similar group emerged which refused to support any candidate who opposed the Iraq War?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#53)

by otware on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM GMT

It's a fair point I guess, but I would say that the Iraq War is a different case, it's more about the issues of international law and foreign policy (things that parties hold firm views on usually) than religion and morality (which parties tend to leave alone, leaving it up to public opinion and free votes in parliament).


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#31)

by Ghost of Nye on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM GMT

Care to provide some evidence for that assertion, NM?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#35)

by otware on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM GMT

I know full well they're pro-choice, I just had no idea there was a British wing of the group. My understanding was that they were group geared up to provide finance to pro-choice (mostly liberal Democrat) candidates in US elections by providing money through PACs and loopholes in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to give money to parties (mostly Democratic Party).


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#21)

by Red Maria on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:30:35 AM GMT

Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic, or more precisely is there a strong current of anti-Catholic bigotry in the Labour Party? Is the Pope a Catholic?

Replies to Richardscorer's comments:

1. There is real, significant evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry in the Labour Party including at very high levels. MEP Mary Honeyball recently questioned whether Roman Catholics should be discriminated against in public life.


2. Those "many" lay Catholics who are cited as being critical of the Church's leadership, are not infrequently non-practising Catholics with little knowledge still less understanding of RC doctrine, such as, criticially, that of the Magisterium. The evidence for this disagreement is often exceedingly thin anyway including public opinion polls which pose leading questions and don't distinguish between practising and non-practising or nominal Roman Catholics.

3. Conor McGinn was right to argue that it was inappropriate for Young Labour to take the position it did over the HFE Bill given that it was a matter of conscience not party policy.

4. The Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT just talk about personal morality. It vigorously opposed Gulf Wars I and II, opposed Trident, campaigned for debt relief, argues that labour has the right to organise and has been extremely critical of government policy towards immigrants and asylum seekers. Those who say it would command more respect if it spoke out on other issues would be advised to aquaint themselves with the facts.  




Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#23)

by richardscorer on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:10:55 AM GMT

A quick response to Red Maria:

1. If you're going to claim that there is "real, significant evidence of anti Catholic bigotry" in the Labour Party,    you'll have to come up with more evidence than a throwaway comment by an MEP.

2. Do you really believe that most lay Catholics agree with and observe the church's teaching on contraception and abortion? I suspect very few of them do. Cherie Blair dosen't observe the church's teachings on contraception (except when she vists Balmoral). Does that make her anti-Catholic? It certainly puts her at odds with the leadership of the Catholic church on this issue.      

4. This isn't just my view, it's the view of many Catholics. See for example last week's editorial in the Tablet.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#25)

by Just Labour on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM GMT

While I agree with the general thrust of your point, I dont think it's right to suggest it was a "throwaway remark" from Honeyball. She has penned at least two separate articles were littered with anti catholic sniping.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#27)

by richardscorer on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:31:37 PM GMT

Yes fair point, it's more than a throwaway remark. But it's still only one MEP.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#41)

by Red Maria on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:47 AM GMT

Reply to Richard Scorer:

1. Mary Honeyball's comments, in which she questioned the right of Roman Catholics to participate in public life were hardly throwaway. They are matter of public record having appeared in an article she wrote for all to see on the Guardian's blog. They came on the back of plans to compromise Catholic schools, the government forcing Roman Catholic adoption agencies to close down accompanied by a stream of off-the-record anti-Catholic comments by MPs and ministers alike to journalists such as Mary Ann Sieghart who wrote:

"The amount of vitriol being whispered in Westminster corridors this week shows how shallowly buried are the old prejudices. “I’m not going to have some bloody reactionary German Pope dictate the law of our land,” said one minister. Another admitted, only half-jokingly, that his mother had always told him: “Never trust a Catholic.” And a third asked: “Where’s all the child abuse and paedophilia? In the Catholic Church. They should get their own bloody house in order and sort out the way paedophilia lies hidden."

and Nick Robinson who said:

"I am struck by the level of vilification being meted out to those with strongly held religious views. It is stated, as if fact, that Tony Blair is acting under orders from his Catholic wife who's acting under orders from the Archbishop who's acting under orders, presumably, from the Pope.
No-one who has met Cherie Blair would believe that a quick call from a bishop would have her quaking. Ruth Kelly is accused of putting her religion before her principles. One Catholic MP who defended her publicly has since received hate mail.

Gay public figures have, of course, experienced vilification for many years and often from religious people. Allow me to delicately suggest, however, that the attitudes being displayed now towards Catholics in public life must feel to them like a form of prejudice and discrimination."

To say nothing of denying its own MPs a free vote of conscience on the HFE Bill. Honeyball's comments were, for many Labour Catholics the last straw.  

2. What you suspect about Roman Catholics is hardly relevant since all Roman Catholics will sin at one time or another in their lives. You don't distinguish between practising Roman Catholics, non-practising Roman Catholics and nominal Roman Catholics so it's difficult to know what you're talking about. Surveys of Roman Catholic attitudes which do distinguish between practising and non-practising Catholics find surprise, surprise, that the more Catholics practise their faith the more they are likely to support Church teaching, which is what you'd expect since Roman Catholics who take their faith seriously know of the importance of obediance to the Magisterium.

I didn't claim that Cherie Blair was anti-Catholic, so I don't know where you got that from.
4. Neither can I make head or tail of your comment, which again refers, without supporting evidence to the views of "many" Catholics, again without distinguishing between practising, non practising or nominal Catholics. To add to the muddle you refer to last week's editorial in the Tablet - a publication I have more than a passing relationship with but which I doubt you read - last week's edition (7 June) had editorials on the poverty trap and the successor to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the most recent issue (14 June) editorialised on the US elections and 42 days detention without charge.

If you read The Tablet you'd know that for the last eighteen months it's been running editorial after editorial criticising the Labour government for its hostility to Roman Catholics in general and disregard for Catholic Labourites in particular.

If you read The Tablet you'd know that it published a feature article on anti-Catholicism in the Labour Party well over a year ago.

If you read The Tablet you'd know that it within the last eighteen months it has editorialised that the Church should respond to anti-Catholic measures from the government with blunt words and pointed out that Catholic votes could influence the results of votes in key marginals at the General Election.

If you read The Tablet you'd know that it was horrified that Catholic adoption agencies were going to be forced to close down and horrified that the government were going to deny Labour MPs a free vote on the HFE Bill.

If you read The Tablet you'd know that its columnists have devoted large chunks of space to discussing and condemning anti-Catholicism in the Labour Party.

But I don't think you've ever read The Tablet in your life.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#47)

by richardscorer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:00:11 AM GMT

A quick response to Red Maria

I doubt we are going to find any common ground, particularly as the tone of your comments is so extreme. However,

1. I think you treat any disagreement with the Catholic position as 'villification' of Catholics. For example the government didn't 'force Catholic adoption agencies to close'. It took the view that decisions on placing of children for adoption should be made in the child's best interests, and if a child's best interests involve placing a child with a gay or lesbian couple, this should override religious objections. This isn't villifying Catholics- it's putting children first.   

2. My original point was that the Catholic church claims to speak on behalf of millions of Catholics, but that in fact many of  those Catholics plainly do not agree with the church's position on major moral issues. I'm simply giving Cherie Blair as a high profile example of a practising Catholic  who clearly disagrees with the church's position on a particular issue (and indeed has chosen to broadcast the fact very publicly). I'm saying that I think that many Catholics, practising and otherwise, in reality do not agree with many aspects of church doctrine. 

3. I read the Tablet, and have occasionally written for it. The section from last week's editorial that I was referring to read as follows (in discussing the successor to Cormac Murphy O Connor): 

"This is no role for a haughty prelate. One who merely berates the English and Welsh for their ungodliness will not be listened to - vision is always better than condemnation. Nor one whose main concern seems to be the protection of sectional interests: Catholic schools matter, but so do all schools. The Catholic Church has to be led away from the habit of thinking that the affairs of the rest of society are more the business of the Church of England, or indeed of only engaging with moral questions when there is a clear "Catholic" agenda. It is by proving its devotion to the welfare of society in general that the Church gains the right to be listened to".


I regard this as a slightly coded way of making the same point as I was making- but you may disagree. 

By the way, can you try to engage in this debate without resorting to personal abuse?
 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#49)

by Ghost of Nye on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM GMT

Interesting post, Richard.  I’m pretty sure I’ve seen/read you on another platform (though we may have more to disagree upon in this one!). 
 
I just wanted to pick up a couple of points you make, specifically that “the government didn't 'force Catholic adoption agencies to close'. It took the view that decisions on placing of children for adoption should be made in the child's best interests, and if a child's best interests involve placing a child with a gay or lesbian couple, this should override religious objections. This isn't villifying Catholics- it's putting children first”.   
 
Let’s be frank – those who were so keen to force through the SORs without an opt-out for Catholic adoption agencies knew perfectly well that the agencies would be unable to go against their consciences on this matter.  If these same individuals made any consideration for the children who would suffer as a result, then this consideration obviously came a poor second to their desire to see the Catholic agencies close.  They have got their wish – as a consequence to this decision, the first Catholic adoption agency has recently announced that it is to close, with others reluctantly admitting it could do the same.
 
But let’s just pause to consider a few important points: the thirteen Catholic adoption agencies across the UK find homes for a sizeable percentage of the approx. 3,000 children adopted per year, including around a third of those children who fall into the hard to place category.  Also worth considering is the fact that despite the numbers of children being put up for adoption are increasing, the numbers of children actually placed decreased by almost ten percent.  It is bizarre that at a time where adoption agencies have never been more needed, the Government – our Government, and my party – instead turned itself to persecuting those agencies for their beliefs and, indirectly, vulnerable children which Labour should have as the heart of its raison d’etre to protect.  Hardly putting children first – in fact, this amounted to a simple act of spite by a militant secular minority, with little or no thought for those who would really pay the price, i.e. children in care.  I never thought that I would hear described as socialism that the poor and most vulnerable should once again pay the price for the “principles” of the powerful.  If the beliefs of the secularist effectively require children to go without a home, then shouldn’t those beliefs held secondary at best?
 
Just as a sign-off, may I also add that I have NEVER met or even heard of a gay couple who have even so much as approached any one of the thirteen major Catholic adoption agencies in the UK – and why would they?  Catholic belief on this issue is well known, and there are alternative agencies where those gay couples who make up 2% of prospective adoptive parents, could apply (if you know of any, then – as has been debated at some length this week – please feel free to produce the evidence: habeas corpus).  This could easily have continued with no slur or detriment caused to the gay community (many of which had no objection whatsoever to the proposed opt-out), possibly with through the current – as yet, untested – compromise of requiring Catholic agencies to refer gay couples to another agency.  But even this middle way was rejected not by Catholics, but by the very individuals accusing them of bigotry.
 
As I have argued elsewhere, Catholic charities including the adoption agencies have up until now played a huge role in reducing poverty across the UK.  This will be a poorer country without them and, sadly, responsibility for this falls on certain factions within Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#55)

by richardscorer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM GMT

Ghost of Nye- My view on the adoption debate (I comment both as a Labour Party member & as an adoptive parent) is that adoption agencies should treat the child's best interests as paramount. This in fact is what the law requires- the paramountcy principle under the Children Act. If the child's best interests  are served by placing him or her with a gay or lesbian couple (or individual) then a responsible adoption agency should do that. Your position (and that of Catholic adoption agencies) seems to be either that it could never be in a child's best interests to be placed with a lesbian/ gay person, or that even if it is, religious objections should ovveride that. Which is it? The first position is pure prejudice and has no basis in evidence, the second is placing religious dogma ahead of the welfare of a child. I would acknowledge the excellent work done by Catholic adoption agencies, but to my mind the first consideration of any adoption agency should be the child's welfare. 

As for Red Maria, ok 'personal abuse' might be putting it a bit strongly, but he/she needs to calm down. As you've demonstrated in some of your postings, there are more rational ways to debate these issues. ps have we met? tell me who you are?  

    


  


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#57)

by Ghost of Nye on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM GMT

Richard – I agree 100%, the child’s best interests should always be placed paramount not only in matters of adoption, but in all areas of family law (though I must posit that this is rarely the case in practice, particularly in matters of divorce – but that’s one for another time).  In terms of the question you pose, you are clearly raising a hypothetical point: as far as I am aware (though feel free to correct me if otherwise), there have been no applications to any Catholic adoption agency by a gay couple.  If there were such an application, then under the arrangement that is in place until October this year, such agencies would refer a gay couple to another agency, thus respecting all "rights".
 
However, to take up your argument around the supposed lack of evidence against gay parenting/adoption, I’m afraid I must again disagree and point out various studies which have indicated that children require parents of both sexes in their upbringing, and those that are denied one or both parents suffer a greater likelihood of the following:

“In our study, 60% of the children with lesbian mothers and 20% of the children of 32 gay fathers experienced relationship problems with other people.  This was because of the fear and confusion that resulted in the children’s minds”.
Wyers N.L., Homosexuality in the Family: Lesbian and Gay Spouses; 1987
 
“(Especially) where boys are concerned, there is a connection between a good relationship with both parents and the boy growing up with proper self-esteem, including being able to make good relationships with the people of the same and the opposite sex”
Byrd A. et al, Gender Complemetality abd Child Rearing: Where Traditions and Science Agree; 2005
 
“In areas such as emotional intelligence, self-esteem and confidence, the father’s influence cannot be duplicated, no matter how good the mother is”
Gottman et al, Meta-emotion: How families Communicate Emotionally, 1996

(I include the latter case study as the majority of gay adoptions in the UK has been with lesbian couples).  Such evidence may be inconvenient but it cannot be ignored, least of all by responsible adoption agencies whose first duty, as you point out, is to the welfare of the child.  To return to your question then, there is indeed evidence to suggest that gay couples, while albeit motivated by the best of reasons, cannot offer the same emotional support and upbringing as can a married (another requirement of Catholic agencies) heterosexual couple.  It is for these reasons, as well as those connected with personal faith and belief, that the Church opposed the SORs applying to adoption services - but instead of rational debate centreing upon the needs of the child, was shouted down amid shrieks and accusations of homophobia.  Again, hardly a feather in the cap of the Labour Party.

Since I note your acknowledgement of the excellent work of Catholic adoption agencies, particularly in placing especially vulnerable children with loving families, surely this was an example where, as I have suggested previously, the Government should have honoured its claim to realise that the Third Sector can often provide manage such sensitive scenarios as these better than the State can – and with nearly 250 years experience in adoption services, there are few better than the Catholic adoption agencies.  In short, perhaps this is an example of where the Government should have butted out, and left this to the genuine experts in the field.
 
Your thoughts?
 
P.S. Re identities, maybe I’ll introduce myself at the next Compass meeting (and maybe I’ve got your identity wrong after all, and will find myself publicly embarrassed! ;-)  Either way, permit me to remain anonymous for the moment!
 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#58)

by richardscorer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM GMT

My thoughts;

Let's suppose you're right that lesbian & gay people in general aren't as good at parenting as heterosexual persons-   a proposition I don't accept, but assuming it to be so for the sake of argument- you're committing the logical fallacy of imputing characteristics to the individual potential adopter based on a generalisation about the group. Japanese people tend, on average, to do better on IQ tests than people from the UK; does it follow that if I pick a Japanese person at random he or she will necessarily have a higher IQ than you or me? Of course not. What is true of the group in general may, or may not, be true of the individual. Adoption agencies are often accused of discriminating against potential adopters who are overweight, or 'too old'. Actually, they don't (as an excellent piece in Guardian G2 this week pointed out) . They look at each individual, and if a person is overweight or older, they might identify that as a potential issue and consider whether it  should disqualify that particular individual in the particular circumstances of the case, and given the child whose interests they need to protect. And I've known plenty of cases where older couples, and indeed overweight couples, have been allowed to adopt because judged in their totality, as individuals, they are excellent parents, even if that particular factor might count against them.  Yet you (or rather the Catholic agencies) refuse to do the same with gay and lesbian applicants- you prejudge them as unsuitable in principle before you know anything about the individual. It's just prejudice, isnt it?

Currently, I'm doing some legal work for a lesbian couple who have adopted a seriously disabled child- a child who has severe spastic quadiplegia and requires round the clock care. Their devotion and selflessness towards this child is extraordinary. Yet you would rule them out in principle as adopters on the basis of research evidence- knowing nothing about them, their circumstances or the child who has now found a loving home with them. 

I'm simply saying that all applicants to become adopters should be judged on their individual merits , and their suitability for the particular child. I think that's a reasonable expectation of all adoption agencies. And indeed a good basis for society in general- judging people on the content of their character and their individual merit, not on the basis of stereotypes about particular groups.    
 



[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#59)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM GMT

I cannot believe that you've just tried to produce 'evidence' which shows gay people shouldn't be parents.

Are you actually a Labour member, or a Conservative? Because that's the most vile post I've read from any member and it wreaks of homophobia. It could have come straight from Conservative Home.

With all due respect, how dare you say that gay couples (and indeed single parents) cannot provide proper 'emotional support' for their children. For all you know there may well be many gay parents (and single parents) who are far better qualified to be parents than you are.

What about the evidence from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute which argues against restrictions on gay adoption and says "there is no child welfare basis to bar such adoptions, as evidenced by social science research and other states' actual policies and practices."

Or what about when Sweden legalised gay adoption and government research over 18 months found that "gay couples are just as capable as their heterosexual counterparts of caring for and rearing a child"

Or does none of this count for the leaders of the Catholic Church since it doesn't re-enforce their own prejudices?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#60)

by richardscorer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:47:50 PM GMT

And of course, Ghost of Nye, on your logic if you wanted to produce 'research' which 'shows' that black people aren't as good at parenting as white , you probably could, as I daresay there is research  which shows that the rate of family breakup and absentee fathers is higher in Afro Caribbean communities. And on your logic, presumably you would go ahead and discriminate against black people as potential adopters, on that basis.

But the truth, of course, is that the refusal of Catholic agencies to allow gay and lesbian couples to be adopters has nothing to do with 'research'. It is based on a religious dogma.    


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#73)

by Ghost of Nye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM GMT

Ignoring the hinted accusation of racism Richard – isn’t it surprising how middle-aged white men are always so quick to play that card? – I repeat only that the evidence I have presented, which incidentally was both considered and undisputed by both the Pontifical Council for the Family and by the recent Select Committee when discussing the child’s need for a father. 
 
As another poster has suggested, your sensitivity to criticism of your own points is rather surprising, given your own tendency to such cheap insinuations.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#75)

by richardscorer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:40:09 PM GMT

Ghost of Nye- there was no 'accusation of racism', hinted or otherwise. You've explained that you are a member of Compass and as such I take it for granted that you abhor racism. My purpose in raising the comparison was to point out that if you insist on making sweeping judgements about the suitability of gays and lesbians to adopt, based on research evidence (if that is what it is) and disregarding their individual merits, then precisely the same logic could be applied could be applied to black people. I don't imagine for a moment that you'd ever apply such logic to black people, and that's the point: you seem to feel that discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable when you would be appalled if people applied that same logic to race discrimination. I'm raising the racial comparison in the hope that you might reflect on why discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. 

Your position as I understand it (and I may not have understood it correctly) is that gay and lesbian couples or individuals can never be suitable to adopt, so that's it's not even worth bothering to consider their individual merits; as a group, they are unsuitable, period. That proposition has no evidential basis whatsoever, and as such, is derived from religious dogma not evidence.   


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#78)

by Ghost of Nye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 05:42:05 PM GMT

Notwithstanding our disagreeing on this issue Richard, I thank you for your clarification of the previous post.  However, as highlighted by another poster Richard, you either misunderstand the central point being made, or are disingenuously attempting to divert attention from it.  My point is that the level of bile directed at supporters of the position taken by the Catholic adoption agencies – as further evidenced by many posters in this discussion – has shocked many practicing Catholics within the Labour Party (and many non-practicing, I’ll wager).
 
Given some of the venomous accusations directed in certain previous posts, you’ll forgive me if I don’t expand further on my position on gay adoption, beyond saying that the Labour Party was once the party of freedom, which is exactly what attracted me in the first place.  I didn’t join the Party to become another Walter Wolfgang, and yet now I struggle to defend it against the criticisms of others that it has now become the party that will not tolerate dissent, particularly from those with a religious viewpoint. 

 
You suggest that I have made “sweeping judgements” on the suitability of gays and lesbians to adopt, despite my citing evidence which challenges your view.  Yet without a shred of any evidence of your own you have sweepingly supported the removal of a right of conscientious objection, for the apparent reason that you dislike what you perceive to be the logic.  You may not agree with that position (and from your previous posts, you certainly don’t seem to have taken the time to fully understand it).  This may beg the question as to whether it is objections on the grounds of religion that you oppose, or do you feel that the State has a right to impose the collective will on any individual or organisation which dissents from the majority – for example, would you support the removal of the rights of secondary school teachers to object on grounds of conscience to conducting a class in the dissection of animal cadavers? 
 
One out – all out, as my grandfather used to say. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#80)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:19:36 PM GMT

The catholic adoption agencies are under no legal requirement to say that all adopted children should be given to gay couples. It is in practise though, that they can't discriminate on the basis of sexuality. This is a key difference. If in a non-religious agency, I had to decide whether a hetrosexual or homosexual couple should bring up a child, and the hetrosexual couple were potentially 10x better parents than the homosexual couple, then of course I would choose the first couple. What the legislation says is that if these roles were reversed, the Catholic agency couldn't give the couple to the hetrosexual couple who may be unsuitable to bring up a child, because of objections to a far superior gay couple.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#82)

by richardscorer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:15:02 AM GMT

 
You ask whether I feel the state has a right to to "impose the collective will on any individual or organisation which dissents from the majority" . No, I don't. I'm in favour of the state intervening on the harm principle-where the exercise of individual liberty causes harm to others- and to protect citizens from discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or indeed religion.

There are certain instances where the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race, sex or sexual orientation clashes with the right to excercise one's religion, and in common wirh most people on the left I would, in those cases, give preference to the former right. In the history of struggles against discrimination there are numerous examples of this clash. In the US, the Mormons believed fervently and sincerely in polygamy, on religious grounds, but the in the early 20th century the state ovverode them and outlawed polygamy. In the 1850s the Southern Baptist church in the US believed fervently and sincerely in the institition of slavery, again on religious grounds, and the US fought a civil war over the issue. Lest I be misinderstood, I'm not insinuating that you support slavery or polygamy. These are simply particularly egregious examples of the general point that sometimes the state must intervene to protect from discrimination on grounds of race, sex or sexual orientation (I'd add disability to tht list too) and in so doing, sometimes has to override religious objections. Both the Mormons and the Southern Baptists believed that they were being discriminated against on account of their religion, and they were right -but a higher principle correctly prevailed over that right.

I appreciate of course that you probably don't see any parallel between the lesbian and gay struggle for equality and previous struggles over race and sex equality. You probably don't even see the Catholic adoption issue in terms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, because as far as you're concerned gay and lesbian applicants are catered for by other agencies in any event. But again, with respect, this argument has been made against previous struggles against discrimination. Supporters of racial segregation in the US argued that no harm was caused by segregation, because if a restaurant didn't want to serve blacks, then blacks could go to one that did. This was exactly the argument which the US Supreme Court addressed in the Brown case in 1954: the 'separate but equal' argument. As the court recognised, there's no such thing as 'separate but equal'; if discrimination is permitted it denies our common humanity and common citizenship, and common right to be judged as individuals on the content of our character. Again, I'm not insinuating that you support racial segregation. I'm simply pointing out that the arguments which are put forward for retaining the right of Catholic agencies to discriminate are not that different from those which have featured, and been found wanting, in other historic debates on discrimination.

Getting back to our orginal subject, I think that the what has been described as 'anti Catholicism' in the labour party is often not anti catholicism at all; it's simply that many people on the left give higher priority to opposition to discrimination on grounds of race, sex and sexual orientation than they do to opposing discrimination on grounds of religion. That's a view I share. Unfortunately the 'catholic' issues (adoption, abortion) often involve a clash of these competing priorities


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#83)

by richardscorer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:20:53 AM GMT

Curiously, in the light of statements by Red Maria and Ghost of Nye that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close as a result of the government's legislation, I now read the following on the website of the Catholic Childrens Society:

"With over 120 years of working with children, for and on behalf of the Catholic community, the society is pleased to confirm that all of its vital services are here to stay.


<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top">
The recent Sexual Equality legislation has presented significant challenges and following a two-year period of dialogue and reflection between the Society and its President and Vice Presidents - the Archbishop of Southwark, the Bishop of Arundel & Brighton and the Bishop of Portsmouth, it has been agreed that it is in the best interests of children to comply with the Government's new Equality legislation.

During this two-year period, extensive consultation has taken place with management consultants, company lawyers and canon lawyers to find a realistic and sustainable solution for all of the Society's projects. In arriving at a decision, three distinct options were given detailed consideration.

The first option involved setting up an entirely new organisation to undertake all family placement services whilst retaining CCS for all other services. This route proved unworkable for a number of reasons, such as constitutional amendments which would have rendered us discriminatory and thus exclude us from working with local authorities, and the legal implications of TUPE (transfer of undertakings regulations).

The second involved the use of Regulation 18 of the Government's Sexual Orientation Regulations. This regulation was included by the Government to enable homosexual and lesbian organisations and companies to employ gay-only staff. We considered that using this regulation for adoption would be exploiting a loophole that would almost certainly be closed at a future date or be open to a costly legal challenge. Non compliance with the law could also lead to withdrawal of funding by local authorities as we would not be adhering to their mandatory equality and diversity policies. Being excluded from working with local authorities would result in the closure of all our adoption and fostering services and an uncertain future for the remaining projects.

The chosen option is to legally comply with the regulations as it offers the only transparent, straightforward and guaranteed way of preserving our full range of much needed services for some of the most vulnerable children in the country. Our Bishops, Trustees, Management and staff have all agreed that, in the circumstances, this is the most reasonable and responsible course of action for the greater good.

We appreciate that some of our supporters may have questions about the change in the law that has enabled same sex couples to adopt. However, eligibility to apply to adopt a child is only the first step on the road to adoption. The applicants must first be thoroughly scrutinised to satisfy the agency, and ultimately the courts, that adoption by them is in the best interests of the child and that they will be able to provide the child with a stable and harmonious home. With over 4000 children currently on the adoption register, it is our view that finding families should remain one of our highest priorities.

It is also important to remember that without our continued work in adoption, finding Catholic families for the most disadvantaged Catholic children will cease. This is rarely a priority for local authorities who do not have the relationships we enjoy with parishes and the Catholic community

We believe that as long-term supporters, you will understand the complexities of the issues we have faced and will empathise with our decision. We hope you will continue to support our work as a social care agency and by doing so, help to improve the emotional wellbeing and outcomes for disadvantaged children, young people and families in our local communities".

A sensible approach - and one that I understand to mean that this Catholic adoption agency is not going to close. Have I misunderstood?   Or is the claim that lots of  Catholic agencies will now have to close, actually not true at all?  

 

</td><td> </td></tr></table>


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#86)

by richardscorer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM GMT

Ps in the interests of accuracy I should point out that I have just noticed that the above statement appears on the website of the Arundel & Brighton, Portsmouth and Southwark Catholic Childrens Society. I am not sure whether and to what extent it reflects the position of fellow Catholic agencies. But, if I've understood it correctly, it does suggest that in fact at least some Catholic agencies have been prepared to adhere to the new legislation as opposed to closing down. But no doubt one of our Catholic posters will clarify the position.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#61)

by otware on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:05:52 PM GMT

He claims to be a member of Compass too. It's shocking really, such homophobia may be acceptable to him but it really isn't to most people.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#63)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:17:25 PM GMT

And owing from evidence from Scandanavia, as I believe Denmark was the fist country to introduce civil unions, gay marriages last longer than hetrosexual marriages.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Labour Party anti Catholic? (#72)

by Ghost of Nye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM GMT

I cannot believe that you've just tried to produce 'evidence' which shows gay people shouldn't be parents.

If you had actually read the post in question Northern Monkey, you’d see that this was presented in disputation of a previous poster’s assertion that the church’s position on gay adoptions is based exclusively in religious dogma, and “has no basis in evidence”.  Of course, if you feel (with your undoubted expertise in this field) that this evidence is fallacious in some way, I suggest you explain your reasons – or perhaps you are guilty of the accusation that you yourself fling out (with your typical absence of substantiation), that you are only interested in the evidence that supports your own prejudices?
 
Are you actually a Labour member, or a Conservative? Because that's the most vile post I've read from any member and it wreaks of homophobia. It could have come straight from Conservative Home.
 
Show me where I have once made any homophobic referenc