At first sight it is hard to comprehend why the Catholic hierarchy has become so incensed over the idea of children being adopted by homosexuals or lesbians. That is, leaving aside the truism of how we always criticise in others those shameful aspects of ourselves that we have repressed and subsequently projected out, so as to gain the reassurance of distance.
The path to the moral high ground begins in the mud; and prejudice is such a giveaway! There is no reason why non-heterosexuals should be less efficient parents than anyone else, and since roughly 60 per cent of children are insecure, the heterosexual contingent cannot claim to be consistently brilliant. I doubt if being religious correlates with adoption outcome.
I will never forget the pious parents who abandoned their adopted teenage daughter after some minor shenanigans that went against their precious moral code. As they drove away from the clinic I spotted on the back of their car the sticker, 'A dog is for life, not just for Christmas'.
So why does a group of well-meaning men, none with families, think they can pontificate on the basis of superstition in a way that will impact on children in the real world?
Well, I suppose most religious belief is predicated on parenting - there's the concept of a deity providing the idealised attachment figure who offers a secure base (the faith group), necessary restrictions (moral codes) when learning independence, a safe haven (always there and forgiving), unlimited ready access (prayer), inescapable rewards and punishment to ensure compliance (heaven and hell), and a way of discharging aggression when insecurity (doubt) surfaces (attack unbelievers).
In the Catholic tradition, those in power are all Fathers and Mothers, authoritarian parental figures for their flock. Perhaps that is why they have a subliminal conviction that they are qualified to arbitrate over the help on offer to desperate small children who just need trustworthy and interested caregivers.
A remarkable Jewish teacher said, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' (He was fairly pro-children too, by all accounts). I think I must have missed that in the recent debate. All I heard to justify the Church's line were the re-cycled prejudices of writers from different eras and cultures. For any religion, these are the sources of the lethal delusions of fundamentalism that are so attractive to the insecure and mad.
Robin Balbernie is a consultant child psychotherapist in Gloucestershire
