Thu 23rd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 23rd Oct 2014 at 10:18am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

The evidence is coming in. As the CDF predicted, allowing children to be adopted by ‘parents’ in gay unions is not in their best interests

A peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal has been conducted by a US academic who was accused by gay activists of misconduct, then vindicated

By on Tuesday, 18 September 2012

The CDF has said: 'The absence of sexual complementarity in [same-sex] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children'

The CDF has said: 'The absence of sexual complementarity in [same-sex] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children'

Earlier this year, in Faith magazine, I asked this question: “Are ‘gay rights’ now the most prominent defining issue delineating — at least in Europe and the US — the gulf between the Catholic Church and the modern world?” This was a rhetorical question inviting the answer, yes: and in the months that followed, I have, it seems to me, been proved right. Related issue after related issue has arisen in public life, in Parliament and in the courts of law, both national and international: here in the United Kingdom, both North and South of the border, the debate has centred on the issue of gay marriage: so I don’t apologise for returning to the subject yet again, so soon after writing about Nick Clegg’s accusation that those opposed to it are bigots.

It is one of those questions that currently seems more and more to be proving, a secularist would say, how out of touch Catholics are with the modern world. To which we would reply, well, not out of touch at all: but certainly, in many ways, and not for the first time, diametrically opposed to contemporary values — though we are hardly alone this time: as I write, the Coalition for Marriage petition against gay marriage has reached a total of 600,783 signatures and by the time this is in print, that total will be considerably higher — you can check its current level and sign the petition while you are about it if you haven’t already done so. I am not sure, but I think that this is the highest ever total for an online petition, and is many, many times the total of the equivalent pro-gay marriage petition, which exists but which keeps a very low profile for that reason.

We will be proved right, in the end, as we were over eugenics in the last century: Hitler dramatically proved us right, and eugenics suddenly went underground. But for most of the first half of the century, only Catholics opposed it: Chesterton was the only major writer who wrote against it, nearly all the rest were enthusiastic supporters. But the trouble with waiting for history to prove us right is that there have to be so many walking wounded — or worse —first.

As I wrote in this column in 2010 about the enforced closure of our adoption agencies: “We are currently passing through a kind of cultural blip, in which these things go unchallenged (except, as usual, by the Catholic Church). Our descendants will look back and marvel at our gullibility. But in the meantime, in the name of human rights, of liberation from “outworn shibboleths” (remember them?) there will be many human casualties. “Oh Liberty,” in the famous words of Madame Roland as she mounted the scaffold, “what crimes are committed in thy name!”

Why is the Catholic Church against, not only gay marriage but all gay unions? It is worthwhile to remind ourselves why. It was spelled out by the CDF, in a document turgidly entitled “Consideration regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”: the title indicates that the document was published (2003) before most countries had actually done it. “Legal recognition of homosexual unions,” it said, “would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage”. And one of the main effects of this devaluation would, said the CDF, be in its effects on the children adopted by those contracting such unions. The reasons for this are simple enough:

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Pretty bigoted stuff, Nick Clegg would undoubtedly say: but what, Mr Clegg, if the CDF has got it right? The trouble, as I have already suggested, with waiting for history to prove us right is that there have to be so many casualties first. But already, the evidence that the CDF has indeed got it right is beginning to come in, from the USA: though those registering the evidence are of course going though the fires of calumny from gay activists, including accusations of academic dishonesty (why is it we can’t call them bigots?). As the Baptist Press reports: “The University of Texas at Austin has cleared sociology professor Mark Regnerus of academic misconduct after he was excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents’ homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children.

“Regnerus made headlines in June when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts.

“They are also more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.”

How many years will it be before such findings are acted on? I fear that despite the academic evidence (this is not the only such study), it will take some years before public opinion supporting gay marriage (in the US, currently, this is a majority: here, I’m not sure, evidence is conflicting) goes into reverse, and even longer before gay couples are no longer allowed to adopt children. This is not the beginning of the end: but as Churchill famously said after El Alamein, it may be the end of the beginning. In the end, the Catholic Church, not for the first time when it has defied the Spirit of the Age, will be proved right. But what a lot of suffering is caused before finally the penny drops when the human race gets it wrong as spectacularly as it has this time.

  • NewMeena

    I did go some way to explaining PP, but the censor (the fierce night-shift) has removed the info’.

    Perhaps you saw it yesterday though, before they clocked-on.

  • NewMeena

    And my name is NOT Meena any-more; it’s now NewMeena.

  • NewMeena

    PS:  In view of the recent new (EU) regulations regarding “cookies” planted by websites on browsers, I do NOT give my consent to any additional one(s) being planted on my browser.

  • Oconnord

    Best reply ever!!!!

  • andreagregorio

    Ahem….. LGBT were proved right in the end… (see link above)  Next stop France 2013 and UK 2015 for full and equal marriage…  Oh and Milan Italy has now opened a register of recognition of same sex unions, a reasonable start for such a country that can now be built upon….. all the way down to Rome itself…….

  • Oconnord

    So it is just your perception. I would have made the same statement if it had been any single university in a different State.

    “When was the term “peer reviewed ” changed to mean ” endorsed by a Californian university”?

    My point is about the use of the term peer reviewed being used after an endorsement from a single academic faculty. It had nothing to do with it’s geographic location.

    But even so, when did Texans become a separate race that I can be scornful of? 

  • JabbaPapa

    There is no evidence that there is such a thing as ‘the gay gene’

    The reason for that is that this morning’s PC zealot has removed all of that evidence from this online discussion.

  • JabbaPapa

    You are a radical atheist.

  • Oconnord

    I agree, but you left out the fact that many gay people have the same experience, and it can have worse results. I’ve known gay men, my age or older generally, who had unhappy, if not disastrous marriages. All because they were told that marrying a woman was the normal thing to do.

  • NewMeena

    What do you mean when you say that the “duckling effect” can be observed in atheists coming originally from a culturally theist background, such as a Christian one?

    But the “raising of questions” and “wondering”, I believe, is an excellent and fully human way to live. 

    The world is, of course as usual and most regrettably, full of people who will tell you “the truth” about almost everything – so that there is no need to question and wonder. 

  • NewMeena

    May I then continue the sentence and go a little further to make it easier for you?

    It [the NHS] pays for many things related to well-being in its broadest sense such as: wigs, plastic surgery, fertility treatments etc. None of this need concern drugs or invasive action to maintain health within a narrow understanding that word – but in our society it is considered normal and proper to provide these services.
    I think the cloning of gay people to enable them to enjoy bringing-up their own children, will fall within this class of procedures.   

  • Nardia

    The paper was reviewed by 6 researchers. All of them active researchers with a Ph.D. in the field. So it is peer reviewed.  Because of the nature of research no university endorse (or should)  the results of any specific research. This will not be ethical since in a same university two or more researchers may have different point of view. The authority of the university lies in the ethic of the research not in the conclusions of the research. They did not find any ethical problem with the methodology or the data and the conclusions are consistent with the data. They are not saying that they agree are disagree with those conclusions or that they think it is a good or a bad research. That is the work of the reviewers and the scientific community at large, which do not include bloggers, activist, professional associations, and politicians. 

  • JabbaPapa

    You are extremely deluded if you imagine that Old Europe will ever recognise any homosexual personal arrangements as “marriage”.

    The politicians can come up with whatever lunatic utopian plans they like.

    The only thing that they can possibly achieve is to divorce the Church from the State.

  • JabbaPapa

    Christianity condemns polygamy.

    The rest of your “contribution” is just irrelevant.

  • JabbaPapa

    The world is, of course as usual and most regrettably, full of people who will tell you “the truth” about almost everything

    Yes, and it would be most agreeable if you would simply stop doing so.

  • JabbaPapa

    This does not constitute an answer to nytor’s question.

  • Gooodman2213

    “They are also more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.”Homosexuality is not the problem. YOU ARE. Gays are not going anywhere so until we can provide for them an environment that makes them feel accepted and secure they will continue to suffer mentally and be subjected to the behaviors above. 

  • scary goat

    I mean England, for example, has a long history of Christianity which has remained part of our cultural identity, so deeply ingrained that people don’t even notice it. They have thrown away the baby, but kept the bath water.  Made a conscious decision to reject Christianity  whilst still assuming that the basic principles on which our culture is based are “normal”.  They take it for granted that “that’s how it is”….but it isn’t.

    For example, “atheist spirituality”????? It’s a contradiction in terms.

    Again, it is deeply ingrained that monogamy is the norm….even if it’s serial monogamy. (or even gay monogamy). People find the idea of polygamy distasteful, a breach of love/trust/human rights even. In other cultures this is not so.

    And what about “love”.  I think atheists still talk of love. And I think they mean that abstract concept of love, not merely a sexual attraction. Love in an almost spiritual sense, a soul mate.  What spirit?  What soul?

    And human rights. Surely the concept of human rights is based on the Church’s understanding of “the dignity of every human life”. From an atheist perspective, I have to ask, what rights? Aren’t we all just freaks of pond life who happen to be here by chance? Darwinism and survival of the fittest….why help the “weakest links” to survive? Its not good for the species..let them die off and let the strongest survive.

    If you actually follow atheism through to its logical conclusions it’s not a pretty picture. But people don’t like to look at that.  They prefer pretty.  So they superimpose atheism on a pre-existing Christian culture.
    Gradually, as we move further away from the original Christian culture on into the second and third generations, so atheism moves closer to what it really is. Be careful what you wish for, because as the Christian culture is further and further eroded and the basis of our culture is swept away, I don’t think people will like what they are left with.

    It’s easy to pick holes in the “status quo”. Pick fault with religion because it doesn’t conform to “current thinking”.  Enjoy a good Christmas bash whilst ridiculing those of us who actually believe in the Christ, and carry on current-thinking their way into oblivion.

    Thank you for your compliment on my “excellent……raising of questions” etc.  It was that ability to question my own  “duckling effect” which led me to the Catholic faith.  Indoctrination doesn’t always work…in my case atheist indoctrination.

  • NewMeena

    Yes my comment was posted especially for you.
    But your response is untrue.

  • NewMeena

    Thank you for the reply.
    I went the other way in seeking freedom from indoctrination.

    And of course human beings are spiritual creatures with souls. But I do not believe there is anything supernatural about this.

  • Oconnord

    “That is the work of the reviewers and the scientific community at large”
    Can 6 reviewers from a single university be considered the  “scientific community at large”? 

  • scary goat

     Meena, I’m not trying to be harsh, but please think about what you are saying. If you are really an atheist, I’m sorry but there is no spirit or soul. We are just a complex bunch of cells and chemicals and electrical connections. Emotions are just developed responses to ensure the continuation of the species.  No spirit, no soul. Is it possible that you have rejected the “trappings” of religion, perceived injustices, or  “mumbo jumbo” without thinking atheism through to its  full and logical conclusions? Think it through meena, no meaning, no purpose, no nothing. Never mind Christianity, just think theism  v atheism. Make sure you really believe what you think you believe. Peace.

    h to it


  • scary goat

    to meena:
    h to it at end is typo.  Don’t know where it came from. 

  • Nardia

    YES, this is part of the discussion of the scientific community at large.

    The standard review process in any scientific journal requires that a paper be reviewed by (usually) 3 reviewers. In this case, the editor sent the paper to 6 reviewers (that is unusual) and the paper was approved unanimously.

    The purpose of any research paper is to present theories, or results to the scientific community which will refute, confirm, repeat, validate, or extend the research. This is the process of scientific discussion in the scientific community. This is a dynamic process that could take years or centuries.  Because of this process, the scientific research that is dominated by any ideology eventually is rejected because other researchers will re-take the topic in the future (when the politics allow it, when new techniques or methodologies are developed, or when the scientific endeavors are not silenced.)

  • Nardia

     I would like to clarify the term “peer reviewed”.  Peer review is a term used in the scientific community that means that the work was revised and approved by other researchers.  “Approved” does not mean that the whole scientific community agrees or that all reviewers agree with the research. It means that the methodology used is correct, that the conclusions are consistent with the data, and that the research can be submitted to the scientific community at large for its discussion (which means it can be published).

  • Johanne

    I’m not sure if you’re being willfully ignorant on this matter, but you may find the following link from the American Medical Association explains the reasons why no one is expecting to have viable human cloning any time soon – and that includes within your arbitrarily designated 10-15 year time frame.

  • Johanne
  • getwiththetimes

    You lot living in the Middle Ages is what’s farcical here. Get a grip. Gay marriage will happen and gay adoption will continue. You can move with the times if you want or you can stay in your hovels. It’s up to you.

  • andreagregorio
  • andreagregorio

    No, delusion doesn’t come into it.  When you say ‘Old Europe’, it is important to recognise that Old Europe is in a state of rapid flux.  It is precisely this rapid flux that lad to legalized equal marriage in Spain, Portugal – etc., and where this legalization will now take place in France too.  As the older generation die off, they are being replaced by a younger, ultra-liberal youth who embrace the gay lifestyle as simply an alternative, rather than seeing being gay in the rather hysterical language of an ‘intrinsic disorder’ and a ‘grave offence against the natural order’, and so on.  Very few people take such language seriously these days and instead find it either laughable or disturbing or both together.  It is a sort of ‘black comedy’ in motion. 

    To the writer above who says that as Catholics we ‘know’ that this is true I say, no we do not!  We have been told that it is by the Hierarchy, but the teaching on moral theology is far from infallible and is therefore entirely subject to revision,  And so it must be in accordance with increased scientific discovery and knowledge.  Otherwise, we set in aspic ancient notions of what is ‘natural’ and what is not.  This serves no other purpose but to create statis and paralysis where there should be authentic progress and understanding.

    As for divorce of Church and State, roll on, let us accelerate the good work of separation that has occurred over the last one hundred years worldwide……  Faith has a great place in Society – but NOT Theocracy in ANY form. 

  • JabbaPapa

    When you say ‘Old Europe’, it is important to recognise that Old Europe is in a state of rapid flux.

    When I say Old Europe, it should be immediately clear that I am not referring to the modern entities that have been set up in its place on the European continent.

    rather than seeing being gay in the rather hysterical language of an
    ‘intrinsic disorder’ and a ‘grave offence against the natural order’

    This language is not “hysterical”.

    Homosexuality is, to use the language more precisely, intrinsically ordered towards objective moral evils — the doctrine does NOT describe homosexuality itself nor its existence as being “an intrinsic disorder” ; but rather that homosexual *activities* intrinsically provide the occasion for sins and evils to arise in society ; including by the way such sins and evils as the active hatred and active persecution and the committing of crimes against homosexuals.

    Homosexuality is NOT described as a “grave offence against the natural order” — homosexual *sex* is described in this manner. This is because not only does it directly violate the natural purpose of our procreative organs towards procreation, but also because it encourages the false view that such a perversion of these natural functions, perversion being used here in its technical philosophical meaning of a misapplication of the means towards one thing for an entirely different outcome, can be seen as a positive, whether individually and privately or collectively and publicly.

    the teaching on moral theology is far from infallible and is therefore entirely subject to revision

    This is the modernist heresy in a nutshell.

    This notion of yours has been repeatedly denounced by our Church as anathema.

    Otherwise, we set in aspic ancient notions of what is ‘natural’ and what is not.

    Rubbish !!!

    In fact, you are trying to set in aspic your own notions that the Doctrine of the Faith is of a human origin only, instead of understanding that it is provided by Revelation.

  • JabbaPapa

    OK, but that still means that these men think that the purpose of a relationship is the gratification of their sexual desire, which means that they are trapped in their own carnality, and unhappy because they are not properly seeking their spirituality.

  • Guglielmo Marinaro

    I’m still old-fashioned enough to think that the best environment for a child to grow up in is a traditional family with a mother and father. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and there clearly aren’t enough married heterosexual couples to adopt all the children who are in need in need of adoption. A child is, ON AVERAGE, better off and far safer being brought up by a committed gay couple than in a children’s home, especially one run by a religious order.

  • paulsays

    Well OF COURSE the CDF would come to these conclusions! 

    Almost reminds me of the ‘Climate-Gate’ s scandal at the university of East Anglia around 2009. Scientists had the conclusion to their experiments even before they went ahead and tested (and then doctored the facts).

    An independent body are the only people that can be trusted to produce a totally unbiased report. Because (lets just say that) the CDF report was produced in good faith –  a one-sided mentality to begin with does not make for a reliable source.

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh please, not this nonsensical so-called “climate-gate” so-called “scandal” again !!!!

    They didn’t “doctor” any evidence, they set it out in a presentable format.

    Perfectly ordinary internal discussions about the precise form of that presentation do not constitute any kind of ludicrous conspiracy.

    The average global temperature is in fact steadily increasing — which doesn’t actually mean that most of Europe will turn into a new Sahara desert by 2015.

    The Climate skeptics are meanwhile being massively funded by the Multinational gas and oil corporations who would stand to lose the most from any truly significant international policy changes towards greenhouse gases.

  • paulsays

    I’m no climate skeptic far from from it. Although it is not something I have invested a great deal of time in looking at, I am very much happy to agree with the over 90% of scientists that agree that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring.

    I don’t know in detail the ins and outs of ‘climate-gate’ email by email so I am not going to dispute your point. The larger point I was/am making is that reports should only be trusted if they come from an unbiased source – the CDF not being such a source.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, you’re wrong — statements by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are not autocratic in nature, but instead they are produced after lengthy and exhaustive consultation of large numbers of experts having multiple different points of view on the questions in discussion.

    They are ultimately synthetic in purpose and structure, and they remain subjected (if any disputes should occur pursuant to their publications) to the higher Authorities of any *subsequent* (but not earlier) Ecumenical Councils that may declare upon those disputes, and to the Holy Father.