by John L. Allen Jr.
Join the Conversation
Send your thoughts to Letters to the Editor. Learn more
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
New York
Two trends long on a collision course in the West are the gay rights movement in secular culture, and the strong reassertion of Catholic identity within the Church, which among other things is producing a “battening of the hatches” on questions such as homosexuality. For the foreseeable future, a church ever more committed to its traditional stance on sexual ethics will confront a secular culture ever more likely to see that stance as not merely unconvincing, but as a criminal violation of human rights.
A story out of England this week makes the point.
The British government has adopted a new set of “Sexual Orientation Regulations” designed to make discrimination against homosexuals illegal. The sweeping language of the regulations, however, has raised fears among religious groups about possible pressure to compromise their beliefs. Most immediately, the law could cut off public funding to Catholic adoption agencies which refuse to place children with same-sex couples, effectively driving them out of business. (At present, Catholic adoption agencies in England, which account for roughly four percent of all placements, meaning one-third of the voluntary sector, refer gay couples to other providers).
The regulations are already in place in Northern Ireland, and are set to take effect in England and Wales by April. In early January, an attempt to overturn the law was defeated in England’s House of Lords, by a vote of 199 to 68.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, has written to Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of the cabinet asking for an exemption from the new law for religious groups, a request that has drawn the backing of Anglican and Muslim leaders in Great Britain.
“We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that, if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences,” Murphy-O’Connor wrote.
According to press reports, Blair, whose wife and children are Catholic, is said to be sympathetic to the call for an exemption for religious groups, but that stance is bitterly contested by other members of his administration and by a wide cross-section of public opinion. Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has said that “it is extremely difficult to see how you can be excused from anti-discrimination law on the grounds of religion.”
The fact that Blair’s Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, who is studying the issue, is a supernumerary of Opus Dei, has also fueled perceptions in some circles of a clash between tolerance and religious fundamentalism.
Polly Toynbee, a popular English commentator in The Guardian, has defined the debate as “a mighty test of strength between the religious and the secular.”
Observers of the European scene say that however the English debate is eventually resolved, it is hardly likely to be the last time that a growing body of secular law demanding equal treatment of gays clashes with strongly-held religious beliefs.
Philip Jenkins, a Scot who teaches at Pennsylvania State University, predicted in a recent interview that one day soon, European courts may actually prosecute church leaders who articulate the traditional Catholic position on homosexuality under laws prohibiting “hate speech.”
In such battles, the church’s traditional base of support has been significantly eroded, at least in the U.K., by declining numbers of people who see themselves as “religious.” In a 2006 national survey, 44 percent of the population described itself as having no religious affiliation, making that the most popular religious option in the country, ahead of Christians at 40 percent.
