Liberalism means allowing faith groups their foibles

Published: February 19, 2012 at 8:52pm

This is my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday, today.

The fresh fuss about the decision of a Maltese-run Catholic organisation in Ethiopia, not to liaise on any more adoptions by single ‘people’, is pointlessly complicated.

It is being built up as yet another way of being cruel to homosexuals. So before matters get really out of hand as they usually do, let’s spell out the facts.

For a start, those who complain most bitterly about what they see as the lack of separation between church and state should not fall prey to such confusion themselves.

Religious organisations are, like everyone and everything else, subject to the law of the land. It is the law of the land which regulates adoptions and who may or may not adopt, and not the Catholic Church or any other faith group.

The decision of the church organisation in Ethiopia not to cooperate with single ‘people’ any longer does not mean that the law has changed in respect of adoptions by single ‘people’. The law on adoptions is still what it was last week.

I put ‘people’ in inverted commas because the news reports I have read so far have presented the matter to their readers as though single people in general have so far been allowed to adopt children, and will not be allowed to do so any longer because of what the Catholic Church here has decided. This is wrong.

Single men are not allowed to adopt children under Maltese law, and this is irrespective of their sexuality. There might be some very rare exceptions made for the adoption of boys by single men – generally if there is already a biological relationship – but single men are definitely and absolutely not allowed to adopt girls.

Single women are allowed to adopt both girls and boys under Maltese law, and this, too, is irrespective of their sexuality.

While on the face of it this might seem like outright discrimination between single men and single women (rather than between homosexuals and heterosexuals, so let’s be clear about that), the reality is that it is done for the protection of the child. Where the safety of children is concerned, there is no scope for giving potential adoptive parents the benefit of the doubt.

The law does not consider it safe to put girl-children, especially, in the sole care of a man who is not related to them.

The law of the land is supreme whatever a Catholic organisation in Ethiopia might have decided. If single women cannot find children to adopt through that organisation, they will have to redouble their efforts and go elsewhere. That’s about the sum of it. Protesting that this is unfair is neither here nor there.

The Catholic Church in Malta has said that it took this decision because it would like adopted children to grow up in homes with two parents. It is an autonomous organisation and has every right to decide which adoptions it will or won’t cooperate on. The Catholic Church does not make the law but is subject to it, and so people who fret about church decisions are fretting unnecessarily.

They are also making the very same mistake of which they accuse others, and attributing to the church authorities power which does not belong to them. A church organisation does not have the power to decide who gets to adopt a child. The state authorities have that power, guided by the law.

There are those who think that church organisations – or any other adoption organisations, for that matter – should not be permitted to have different guidelines or parameters to those of the law. There is a self-sorting mechanism, of course. Private or church-run adoption organisations will not liaise on adoptions which the state will absolutely not permit, because it would be a pointless exercise, given that it is the state which must sanction and process the actual adoption.

This is the most obvious acknowledgement that it is the law of the land, and not what any religious organisation thinks or believes, which holds sway, but the ‘nasty, mean church has all the power’ brigade prefer to ignore it.

In other words, no church organisation will help a single Maltese man source a girl-child for adoption because it knows that such adoptions are not allowed by law. Those same church organisations, however, are perfectly at liberty to refuse to help a single woman source a child for adoption, even though such an adoption is perfectly legal.

Coincidentally, there’s a contemporaneous fuss in Britain, where gay people can enter into a form of marriage called a civil union, about much the same thing. Catholic adoption agencies there are closing down after the recent ruling by the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that ‘religious rules should end at the door of the temple’ and that Roman Catholic adoption agencies and other faith groups which provide public services may not operate by “a different set of laws” from the rest of society.

This ruling was in view of the fact that those Catholic adoption agencies refused to process adoption applications from people in homosexual unions.

Lest you run away with the idea that Mr Phillips’s ruling is a laudable one which proves how truly great a democracy Britain is, I should tell you that it has been unequivocally slammed by religious and political leaders and a wide variety of commentators. And it is precisely the tone of this criticism, rather than the ruling itself, which validates Britain’s reputation as a great liberal democracy.

The general gist is that the Phillips ruling betrays a totalitarian mindset which is deeply at odds with liberal thought; that religious groups should be left free to practise what they preach as long as they do not come into conflict with the supreme law of the land. When they do come into conflict, it is the law which wins out.

Put simply, if Catholic adoption agencies do not wish to process applications from homosexual couples – for the simple reason that this is in direct conflict with the principles of Catholicism, and they cannot do it – they should be left free not to do so. Leaving them free not to do so would have certainly been a good deal more desirable than what has happened now: the loss of a valuable adoption service caused by the closure of Catholic adoption agencies which may not, because of their religious beliefs, liaise with homosexual couples.

British law allows the adoption of children by homosexual couples, and so those couples are free to go elsewhere to have their adoption arranged. There are plenty of other adoption agencies, and so it is not a matter of Catholic adoption agencies or nothing.

That is the essence of liberal thinking. To force Catholic agencies to do something which is profoundly at odds with their religious beliefs is not liberal. It is an act of aggression against religion and yes, it is totalitarian at root.

As for the situation with Maltese prospective adoptive parents and the church-run organisation in Ethiopia, I can only say this. A private organisation is a private organisation. If you wish to benefit from its services, you have no choice but to abide by its rules. If you do not like those rules, or if those rules exclude you, then the law of the land allows you to go elsewhere.

We cannot dictate to volunteers and charities who they must help and who they must not. It is only state authorities which have a universal service obligation, so this begs the question: if prospective parents are so upset at the decision which the Catholic Church has taken, why are they not petitioning the state to set up an overseas adoption agency which, in line with the law, will not exclude single women?

They go on and on about the separation of church and state, but then insist on treating any service provided by the Catholic Church as they would something provided by the state.

As to who should or should not be allowed to adopt children, I have long thought that the only guideline should be an assessment of whether the child is going to be better off with that particular prospective parent or better off where he is now. The guiding principle in the law is the best interests of the child.

That should continue to be the case; it is just that we have to revise our interpretation of what those best interests are, according to new research, values and attitudes, and insight into child psychology.

This is where I think the Catholic Church is wrong in its Ethiopia decision. A child adopted by a single woman in Malta is always going to be better off than if he were left to grow up in a precarious situation in an Ethiopian orphanage, facing a desperate future. But if the Catholic Church thinks otherwise, because of its religious principles, then I will have to respect its decision, even though I obviously do not agree with it.

I only hope it can be persuaded otherwise, and realise that the spirit of its religious law must not be undermined by too strict an adherence to its letter.




15 Comments Comment

  1. Matthew Vella says:

    Regarding the ruling in Britain, a business cannot simply discriminate against certain couples. Just as a hotel cannot turn away an individual or couple who are black, simply because they are black. Or if a business believes that for whatever reason Jewish people are in some way damaging to their reputation, it cannot simply ban Jews from entering.

    These organizations provide a wonderful (though imperfect) service, but at the end of the day if they want to work within the parameters of the law, they cannot discriminate against couples based on sexual orientation.

  2. Not Tonight says:

    If I want to be perfectly honest, I would have to say that had my husband and I been hit by a bus and both passed away, I would much rather have had my son adopted by a regular couple than by a single male or homosexual couple of either sex.

    Why is it that the wishes of the natural parents are never given any consideration whatsoever?

  3. I have taken the liberty of linking to your post in my blog post. If you don’t want me to just ask me to remove it.

    [Daphne – That’s fine. Thank you for telling me.]

  4. Form IIC says:

    “Single men are not allowed to adopt children under Maltese law, and this is irrespective of their sexuality”

    How so? The Civil Code categorically allows single people of either sex to adopt.

    [Daphne – There is an approvals system. Single men are allowed to adopt only in rare circumstances – and generally if they are biologically related to the child already. Girls are never approved for adoption by single men. And I would say that given the current climate and new insight into such situations, the same thinking now applies to boys. It’s not a matter of finding a child and being allowed to adopt it automatically. Even with these legal safeguards in place, children are unsafe: remember the case of the married Maltese couple who adopted two small girls from Romania so that the husband could abuse them.]

  5. Kenneth Cassar says:

    After giving this article a little thought, I must say I have to agree.

    While I do (and did) criticise the adoption agency’s policy, at the end of the day, if the agency is a charity and not a profit-making business, it should be allowed to choose its own charity work (provided it conforms to the law).

  6. Charles Cassar says:

    You are quite right about this, although some cases may not be as clear cut as the one here.

    However, it is deeply depressing to conclude that we are morally bound to accept behaviours and doctrines which are based on blind acceptance of ancient texts rather than on the best available science and philosophy of our times.

    It is encouraging to see that people are increasingly outraged by these attitudes, legitimate though religion’s entitlement to them may be.

    • David says:

      The point is not what old texts say. It is a fact that a child has a better upbringing if he has both an adoptive father and a mother rather than one adoptive parent only. This is the best interest of the child, and adoption must always have as its goal the best interest of the child.

      [Daphne – You need to qualify that statement. A child is better off with a father and a mother only if they’re both decent and good at their responsbilities. Otherwise, that child is better off with one decent parent.]

      Studies show that children from single parent families have a greater tendency to suffer from academic, emotional and social problems. Besides adopted children also have a greater risk of suffering behavioral problems.

      [Daphne – Ah, but those studies don’t factor in the specific circumstances. It is not single-parenthood itself which causes those problems, but the fact that single-parenthood is often associated with an affecting chaos, disruption and financial and emotional hardship. The children of single parents who grow up in stable homes with a degree of financial comfort have no such problems. Equally, there are children who grow up with two parents who have all manner of difficulties, because the presence of two parents does not necessarily make for stability. Also, when you copy and paste from the internet, be sure to change the spelling from American English to British Egnlish, so that we don’t realise that the words are not actually your own.]

      • David says:

        I did not copy and paste. In any case we are not British and for better or for worse we no longer are part of the British empire.

        [Daphne – In Europe, we use British spelling, not American spelling. And in Malta, it is British English which is the OFFICIAL language, not American English. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with being British or part of an empire. In any case, why object to British ‘hegemony’ and think nothing of being colonised by American spelling and habits?]

        On single parent familes I think you are mistaken as the absence of a father or a mother is liley to have negative effects on children.

        [Daphne – You are quite incredible in your literalism, David. I almost enjoy it. I did not say that the absence of a parent does not have a negative effect on children. I said something else entirely: that the presence of two parents does not necessarily have a beneficial effect and that in some cases those parents cause harm. In other words, the simple presence of two parents is not enough. They must be good parents.]

      • Karl says:

        I agree with Daphne here. Unfortunately, although statistics are very important to make important decisions, statistics are being published without prior research into the causality to give a proper background and context. Since one cannot expect everyone to be a statistician, the decision makers tend to rely on the numbers alone without requesting proper context.

        With regards to single-parent issues, as Daphne said, the matter is more complicated. One cannot assume that the problems faced by children brought up in a single-parent environment are caused by the fact they’re in that environment. Most of the times, the reason that parents become a single parents IS the reason the children are having problems: poverty, neighbourhood, culture, stability of the parent/s.

        This is a common problem with statistics anywhere you go. I work as a statistician for a private company, and I go to great lengths to outline the context and circumstances to give a solid background to the numbers I produce. I learned this the hard way. I have seen many bad decisions being made by the company based on the incorrect interpretation of reports I have done. When the recipients of statistics are governments, and the same lack of context is factored in, the results can be catastrophic.

  7. “A child adopted by a single woman in Malta is always going to be better off than if he were left to grow up in a precarious situation in an Ethiopian orphanage, facing a desperate future.”

    The argument being made by the likes of Marco Cremona is that this is not the case…because the supply is so much smaller than the demand that most children will end up being adopted any ways (by couples).

    But when orphans turn the age of 3 to 4, the tables turn and they become practically un-adoptable.

    Whilst some might be OK with just disagreeing with The Church’s ‘unofficial’ decision but executed instruction, I prefer to make people aware of how hypocritical it really is.

    Of course the discussion is going to get sidelined in every way possible but there’s nothing new there, it’s just part of the game.

    For starters check your inbox for a clear example how a really ‘mature’ member of the clergy (Fr. Rene A Cilia) tried to discredit my argument.

    He refers to the photo that I used in my blog http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120218/blogs/legal-but-not-possible.407382.

    The kids in the photo are Tanzanian (not Ethiopian) and the photo was taken with their guardians’ permission, but because I didn’t clearly state that they are Tanzanian and not Ethiopian, Fr. Cilia asked : Are there any other facts that you adapted for the sake of an argument throughout your blogging history? Just a harmless question ;)

    How desperate can one get ?

  8. Claude Sciberras says:

    A) You said that an Ethiopian child will always be better off here in Malta even if with a single Maltese woman. As always, generalisations are dangerous. You said that the guiding principle should be whether or not the prospective parent is going to give the child a better future. This should remain the guiding principle and we should never generalise.

    B)I have been to a couple of countries where there is abject poverty and one thing that struck me is that poor children sometimes seem so much happier than ours. Obviously if children are dying of hunger then they are better off here but if they have just the bare necessities it does not mean they will be much better off here in Malta, who knows? My point is that we should avoid jumping to the conclusion that because a child is living in a poor family or in an orphanage they are badly treated or unloved it might be the case sometimes but not always.

    C) The issue of same sex couples obviously complicates matters a lot. To a certain extent i would agree to a policy which would say that single men cannot adopt unless the child is a nephew, neice or grandchild. I think that it should also be the case for women. Whilst understanding the reasoning it is still discriminatory to assume that men are all child molesters and women are not. But now lets assume that Labour has its way and we will have same sex marriages in Malta and that the next step would be to allow them to adopt, how are you going to discriminate between two homosexual men and a single heterosexual man wanting to adopt? What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander maybe not the best choice of words in this case…

Leave a Comment