Print Email

Thursday, February 16, 2012 by

Claudia Calleja

Maltese-run orphanage stops adoption for singles

It is not against Ethiopian law for single people to adopt children but the Church-run orphanage is only accepting couples.

A Maltese Church-run Ethiopian orphanage, from where several people have adopted children, has decided to stop adoptions by single people.

Archbishop Paul Cremona expressed his opinion ... that it would be preferable for children to be adopted by married couples

“The country’s (Ethiopia) laws do not refuse adoptions by Maltese single parents. However, the contact through which Maltese are adopting in Ethiopia is currently accepting couples only,” Appoġġ Agency said.

The issue was raised by columnist Alison Bezzina in a timesofmalta.com blog. Ms Bezzina alluded to the fact that the change in policy came from the Maltese Church and may have been aimed at stopping gay people from adopting children from the orphanage.

When contacted, a Curia spokesman denied that the Church had issued “formal instructions” to the orphanage to stop single parent adoptions.

However, he said, a few month ago Archbishop Paul Cremona “expressed his opinion with a religious person who is involved in an orphanage in Ethiopia, that it would be preferable for children to be adopted by married couples”.

The spokesman did not address the question specifically asking whether this had anything to do with gay people adopting, while questions sent to the orphanage remained unanswered.

Over the past few years several single people, some of whom are gay, have adopted children from the Kidane Mehret orphanage in Ethiopia.

Figures released earlier this month showed that 27 children were adopted from Ethiopia between 2008 and 2011.

Figures for how many singles adopted children from there and elsewhere in the past years could not be obtained before going to print. However, Justice Minister Chris Said recently said that Appoġġ had pending adoption requests from 34 couples and five individuals.

He pointed out that overseas adoptions were on the increase, with the most popular source countries being Russia, Ethiopia and Cambodia.

Family lawyer Ann Marie Mangion argued that if the law of Ethiopia allows single people to adopt children then a person being refused adoption because they are single has the right to contest the decision at the country’s courts.

Maltese law allows single people to adopt. It is known that gay couples can adopt children if one of them applies for adoption.

According to Ms Bezzina’s blog, the Ethiopian orphanage’s new policy might have something to do with this.

“And then last week, during a homily at Ta’ Pinu Sanctuary, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech preached that ‘adoption was an exemplary generous act.’ He also appealed to society to continue showing this hospitality, giving people considering abortion another option... Of course, he failed to mention that single parents, especially ‘the’ gays, need not apply,” Ms Bezzina wrote.

Oversees adoption is a vital lifeline for people wanting to adopt since there are few Maltese children who are put up for adoption. In fact, of the 175 children adopted since 2008, only 20 were Maltese born.

People who would like to adopt a child, be it locally or abroad, have to go through Appoġġ agency. They can currently adopt from Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia, Ethiopia and Russia.

In the case of foreign adoptions the child’s country of origin may or may not approve applications by single prospective parents. The agency has to abide by the law of the country, Appoġġ said.

Print Email

« Press digest Thief caught on camera »

Advert

108 Comments

Post comment

Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 19th, 14:52

@Magnus Mitchell

“given there track record”

Your – now indeed obvious – hatred towards the Church makes you see only one track record, a track record of wrong deeds by a few members of the Church. It does not allow you to see the other track record; the other thousands of members of the Church who each day wake up in a foreign country to give food to those who none; to give shelter to those who none; to teach those who not even how to spell their names. You do not even have too look to much away from home to find homes for abandoned children; where sisters take care of children born into families who can't afford to take care of them. Maybe the Church should close all houses for children, all houses for the poor, because of the track record you talk about. Maybe the Church should close its houses in Ethiopia responsible to ensure children from this country can have a future in a foreign family?

“Is that your narrow a definition of what family is a married couple”

I do invite you to re-read what I said and understand the point I wanted to make; there is nothing wrong in favouring couples rather then single people since even the state recognises the hardship of being single parent. I never said single parents are bad parents, I never said all couples are good parents, I said that I feel there is nothing wrong IN FAVOURING couples over singles given that the state recognises that single parenting can be a hardship; This also keeping in mind, that as others have said over here, there exist an over subscription for children coming from this particular children house.

“not only failed to report the sexual abuse but was actually involved in covering it up”

Did you read the article you posted; The report is again the Bishop not the Church. Indeed it clearly states the Bishop did not follow the “procedures on how to deal with such matters [...] implemented by the Church”. Indeed if you did a little research you would have seen that the Bishop has resign back in 2010.

“Then on top of that this is the institution we are keep to listening obediently to regarding what best for the child”

I think that is already covered above, but just to even more clear - it is the same institution made of members, without any profit in mind, take care of thousands of children from around the world, regardless of their country, colour or religion. The pity is that the media some times put much more attention on the bad rather then all the good the Church and its institution do around the world; not only with children, but with adults and lately even in relation to our environment.

@Joe Xuereb

“it has nothing to do with mal-hazin jehel it-tajjeb.”

Yes it is, because otherwise you would do as I do; call what is bad “Bad” and what is good “Good”. Faith - or lack of it – has nothing to do with truth; and the truth is that people inside the Church did make mistakes but that does not mean that all that the Church stands for is wrong. The truth is that for thousands of years the Church preached the teachings of Jesus Christ about peace and love (today, unfortunately, still a revolutionary though). The truth is that in its 2000year history there where members of the Church who abused their position (even popes sometimes). However it is also the truth that the history of the Church is decorated with the actions of love of thousands who marked the history of mankind with their actions of pure love towards others.

Justin Spiteri

Feb 18th, 00:26

If singles are not good to adopt ...they not even good to give donations .... Church should refund all the money donated by singles over 2011....

Joe Xuereb

Feb 17th, 16:06

I am sorry Mr. Aquilina, but we are not speaking the same language. I never said that child sexual-abuse by a 'relative' is less serious than that committed by a priest. Please do not put words in my mouth. What I did say was the to a child, because s/he is only a child, sex abuse is horrendous and about betrayed trust. And what I DID add was that the impact of sexual abuse of children is different for the adult community - in the case of abuse by a relative, the community can move on, if painfully. As in just another piece of bad, sad news. But the impact on the community when the abuse is committed by a priest lingers much longer amongst those who take their spiritual salvation seriously. This is patently clear. It is to me anyway. But then I am an atheist, meaning I am not in the business of denial in order to feather my bed. Please, Aquilina, try and understand my comments. It is not so difficult you know. That said, I admire your tenacity in defending your Faith. This is as it should be.

Aquilina, it has nothing to do with mal-hazin jehel it-tajjeb. It has everything to do with the fact that the Church should have acted before it was forced to do so. Why did it drag its feet? If anything, you know the answer to that much more than I ever could. Ill give you a clue - scandal.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 17th, 14:43

@Joseph Aquilina. Quoting your good self: So is a child abused by a priest more “damaged” then a child abused by his grandpa grandma, uncle, auntie, father?, mother........ No, I did not say and far less mean, that. Because a child, by definition, is only a child, he or she will only experience physical pain depending on the act forced upon them, and confusion because they are led to believe that a priest and a grandpa are people to be trusted. So no, child-abuse by a priest impacts more on adults who are of an age when they have invested in the Church (a child may be baptised etc. but is too young to understand this). And the shaking of one's spiritual investment affects all adults who come to know of these cases(the child is too young to know about 'spiritual investments. It only knows trust, and when it is betrayed. By whoever). When, on the other hand, a child is abused by anyone in the community, if it makes it to the newspapers (reporting is NOT automatic, remember), people will fill disgusted and upset, but other than that, it does not impact on them in the longer term. Unless it affects them personally - as in, who would have thought it of grandpa? - and even then..... To them it is just another bit of sad, bad news. One of hundreds of others reported.

About adoption generally. Vetting prospective adopting candidates is very rigorous and thorough (one would be surprised who many perfectly ordinary-looking heterosexual married couples are rejected at the first hurdle. Having a child adopted is a very serious matter and any assessment can never be thorough enough and therefore, takes a long time with multiple visits by the Adopting Agency. The unsettling reality is that a family adopting a child may pass all the tests but there is no guarantee that the family set will never become dysfunctional in one way or another. This applies to families and the children in them (that is, not adopted children). There is never any guarantee that a family continues to be stable and loving. In this, we are all at the mercy of the luck of the draw.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 17th, 13:28

@Joseph Aquilina, I am not undermining the Church at all. I am merely stating facts. You continue to insist that the difference between abuse by a priest and abuse by a grandpa is nil. And I repeat, the first is scandalous and detrimental because people invest the salvation of their soul in the priest but the same can not be said about investment in a grandpapa. Get it?!

Furthermore, as Malcolm Mitchell explained more eloquently than I ever could, considering that the priest population is so much smaller than the general population where sexual child-abuse occurs; this, by definition, makes the incidence of such abuse that much higher and therefore of much concern.

Ideally, paedophilia within the Church should never have happened. In which case the Church would not have had to deal with anything. Perfect! But the abuse did happen Aquilina and the Church is now openly dealing with the matter (it had no choice when people started to talk - It's good to talk as the mobile phone jingle says - but the fallout of the scandal, i.e. the threat to the s salvation of one's soul still stands. As far as I am concerned, the only way the Church can dilute this horror is to a) admit that clerics are human and therefore have sexual feelings (I believe it does this already) and b) that it revises its stance on priestly sexuality and allow them an emotional/sexual life through marriage, etc. And from then on, whenever a priest falls foul in whatever way, he will be treated like any other civilian person. But Aquilina, you know as well as I do that the Church cannot do this. The Church will just have to continue wiping egg of its face. It is just one of those 'sitwazzjonijiet antipatici' I'm afraid. I dont think I have anything else to say on the matter. If you need reassurance, I would suggest you have a talk with a priest of your choice. I have known some, intimately, but other than that, I am out of touch with men of the cloth.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 17th, 14:12

@Joe Xuereb
How can you even consider child abuse by the grandfather of the child as something “less” then child abuse by a priest!? It is an abuse and people who make such acts should be brought to justice. The mistake some people from the Church did was not bringing these individuals to justice. Today the story is completely different.

Regarding what Malcolm Mitchell stated; the answer is very simple. You’ll find child abuse cases where there are children. The Church – as part of its mission – built many houses to take care and educate children. Some priests – going against the teachings of the Church herself – abused their position. HOWEVER I HOPE YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THAT NOT ALL PRIESTS DID THE SAME!? Or when I say that indeed the majority of the priests have dedicated their lives to help others!

The attack on the Church is like having a few rotten apples from a few apple trees in a field that contain hundreds of apple trees; and rather than cut the rotten applies and give some vitamins to the trees to ensure there’ll be no more rotten applies, you cut all the apple trees in the field! It does not make sense since you ignore the good that all the other good apples are doing.

Regarding your last paragraph; priests are human like everyone else. They do mistakes like everyone else. There are priests I do not agree with; however it would be unjust of me if I disrespected every priest just because I happen to not agree with one or two of them.

Magnus Mitchell

Feb 17th, 15:26

@Joseph Aquilina

I have asked you to address this few times and you keep avoiding it. What do you think gives the catholic church the authority regarding what is best for children given there track record? Also you make the comment that that giving a child to a couple is the equivalent to giving the child to a family , where giving child to a single person isn’t. Is that your narrow a definition of what family is a “married couple” .What about the single person siblings, parents , aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins and friends .Don’t they somehow feature in the definition of a family? Also the line about the catholic church setting and example to be followed when it comes to dealing with sexual abuse….really ?I am not sure what parallel universe your living in ? As recently as 2009 the diocese of cork in Ireland, not only failed to report the sexual abuse but was actually involved in covering it up http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14136923 Who does this kind of thing ?Any other organization that did this kind of thing would be totally shun .Its only blindly devoted followers that keep them going, which that indirectly support this whole mess by not failing to throw in the towel .I am not taking about renounce the catholic faith, rather the people running the whole show, as they are either completely incompetent to let all this happen for so long or complaisance, but it either one or the other . Then on top of that this is the institution we are keep to listening obediently to regarding what best for the child .Again, what give the church the right to lecture anyone about anything, in particular what’s best for children when you read articles like this, and let’s not forget this is only what is discovered and reported who knows what else is happening as we speak.

Ms. P.M Graham

Feb 17th, 12:37

It's fairly obvious from some of the comments here that many have absolutely no clue of what Adoption and being passed for adoption entails. Many don't make it. It's not easy, nor should it be.

The checks are in depth, take almost a year to complete and for some, the whole process is quite invasive, it has to be. There are also in-depth psychological assessments.

Mario Pace

Feb 17th, 09:51

It is well known that pedophiles usually search for a job like teacher, coach, clergyman or something else that involves regular contact with children. Ideally unsupervised contact with children. This makes the situation of single parent adoption the ideal situation for a pedophile because it does not involve the supervision of another adult partner (single Parent). It all happens behind closed doors, and there's no risk of any of the child's relatives coming from Africa to visit the child, like the natural mother or brothers/sisters or aunts etc.

Considering the child abuse scandal that very recently hit the local Church, could it therefore be that the Church wanted to play safe this time and minimize the risk of child abuse by avoiding high risk situations? Could it be that those blindfolded by their hatred for the Church were quick to assume that it was all and ONLY because of gays and did not consider other possibilities? Let's us not judge others before giving them the chance to open their mouth and give their own side of the story.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 16th, 23:43

@Joseph Aquilina. If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times. Before I continue, I should add that maybe you have read my comments in the past. But, because I am a flagship homosexual who does not believe in an afterlife, you choose to ignore anything I say (like one doctor on these pages who is so terrified of me, or disgusted, that he refuses to respond to any of my comments). Whatever you read, and absorb, or reject, is entirely up to you. I know who I am and where I am going. It is called an identity - but a humble one, although I would not expect you to grasp the significance of this - built on solid ground not on fanciful gobbledegook. Sorry!

So, paedophilia within the Church and wider Society?! The same thing? Of course it is not the same thing. When a grandpapa abuses his grandchild or a neighbour's child, who has any investment in said grandpapa. He'll bring shame on the family and on himself, sure! But that is where it starts and where it ends. Now, when the paedophilia episode involves a child and a priest - the priest and the Church he represents, which in turn turns the other cheek instead of denouncing him, he and the Church are strong symbols of our investment in the salvation of our souls. Now, when said priest, and said Church let us down, and question the validity, and the veracity of our investment, that is where paedophilia by a priest and ditto by a grandpapa, diverge. The priestly paedophilia is scandalous beyond imagination throwing poor souls in convolution. Paedophilia by grandpapa or the man at the corner shop is merely shocking, upsetting. But no scandal affecting lo stato d'anima (one's spiritual wellbeing). And this is precisely why it behoves people like you, Aquilina to see no difference between the one instance of paedophilia and the other. Which is strange because it transpires that even the Church only recently admitted that it was not aware of the pain inflicted upon child victim of sexual abuse by priests. In a nutshell, what I have just written above. And worse than familial abuse of children, when the pain to the child would never be played down. But the Church knows better. It was not aware of the pain. Oh dear! talk about a lame excuse. As I said earlier, being in a hole and continuing the excavation is not a good idea.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 17th, 10:32

“the priest and the Church he represents, which in turn turns the other cheek instead of denouncing him,”

I already said just a few lines below that some people in the Church did do mistake, that some people in the Church did try to solve the problem in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. However you must be (maybe forcefully) blind not to also recognize the fact that the Church has indeed made a large leap forward; working hand in hand with hosting states in any case of child abuse.
What you said regarding abuse by a priest is different than abuse a common men or women does not hold ground; So is a child abused by a priest more “damaged” then a child abused by his grandpa grandma, uncle, auntie, father?, mother?, the shop keeper or the trainer? Have we gone to such lows that in order to be able to further attack the Church we discriminate between genuine cases of child abuse, where a child abused by a priest “deserves” more attention and help then a child abused by a common person (who in the end of the day is human like a priest but has a different profession)?
Remember that a priest who abuses a child is FIRST OF ALL going against the teachings of the Church; the deep wound in the Church does not come from those who attack her from the outside; but from those who attacked her and humiliated it from within.

“You choose to ignore anything I say”

I am very sorry about that … I can’t promise you anything, but I’ll definitely try to be more careful in the future ;)

Jo Grima

Feb 16th, 22:09

i have always said it and will say it again and again. The church is a manipulative, money making machine and evil institution made of a bunch of cradle snatchers, pedophiles, thieves and liars who use the name of God to benefit for their own selfish interests. Many of us have known this for a long time and hopefully many others are finally waking up to the truth.

Wilfred Camilleri

Feb 17th, 12:36

l'm so sorry for you. So angry, misguided, and illogical.

Magnus Mitchell

Feb 16th, 19:50

It assumed of course that there are wider instances of paedophile occurring in society as whole. Yet considering the percentage of the population that catholic clergy make up, in relation to the case of child abuse and covering up of child abuse occurring it is alarmingly disproportionate. The truth is , if the church where corporation with offices all over the world and it was uncover the hundreds of their employees where involved is the epidemic level of sexual abuse as well as systematic cover up and collusion, their CEO was fired and company forced out of business. Yet the dysfunctional environment that created such widespread abuses it not I was pointing out .Rather it’s the sheer hypocrisy of the Catholic clergy to lecture and pontificate regarding the welfare of orphans. Given the wretched outcome for thousands of orphans that where place under their care, to then state that somehow being placed with a same sex couple would jeopardised the child’s welfare is completely disingenuous . Before the catholic church makes these kind of moral judgment they best get their own house in order .I honestly don’t think it huge leap of logic to assume that the blocking of same sex couple is behind disallowing singles to adopt in Ethiopia .If it was common practice, and I assume successful, there has to be some reason, or something that prompted them do this now. The fact its timed in conjunction with what the Bishop has stated publicly then that further adds the potential validity of that theory..Having gone through the process of adopting children myself, what I know by the time a couple straight or gay make contact with agency or orphanage, with their board approval in hand, you know that the question of “Are they fit to provide everything this child needs?” has already been answered. As getting that approval is no easy task, as whole plethora of processes and professionals assessments are required to get the final rubber stamp. As for the statement that “many single parents who apply for social benefits simply because it is hard to raise a child when on your own!! “To be honest I am not quite sure what your saying. Is this just your opinion or do you actually have any studies or data that validate this?

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 22:16

It is clear that your opinion about the Church is biased for some reason or another. As I already stated, unfortunately, paedophile cases exist in all corners of society. In another reply I placed links to three more cases of child abuse; in none of them did I find comments from you (double standards?), but then, in an article which has nothing to do with child abuse (actually the opposite), you come out to accuse the Church as some paedophile harbouring institution, when facts show the Church has always tried to tackle the problem – admittedly and sadly not always in the right way. In the last few years we have seen a very wounded Church, a Church which takes any paedophile report very seriously, a Church which works hand in hand with hosting states. This however does not satisfy those like you who for some reason or another take every opportunity (even when like this time such opportunity does not exist) to attack the Church. Regarding social benefits; I do not know if your are playing to be ignorant of the benefits single parents are entitled to in Malta. Such social benefits exist for some reason. Wonder why?

Magnus Mitchell

Feb 17th, 11:53

@Joseph Aquilina

You may construed that stating the facts regarding the church history is “bias”, that being the case ,ok I am bias .As I am sure no doubt you are willing to admit the same bias yourself. What I find interesting is you haven’t address directly any of the points I have made .

paedophile cases exist in all corners of society. In another reply I placed links to three more cases of child abuse; in none of them did I find comments from you (double standards?)

This is false equivalence .I made it clear I am not saying the church is only place abuse occurs. My point is relative to the percentage of the population clergy make up, the amount of abuse based on that percentage is staggering. Can you tell the name of any other organization , religious, finical, sporting , charitable whose employee has committed such a large number of abuses? The only one I can think of offhand is the scouts and I am sure they don’t come even close to the church. In any of the other cases you linked did the people accused and convicted on these abuse come out later and start lecturing on what’s best for the children ?If they did would you listen? How would feel if some then came and said you “Come on there not all that bad and it goes on in other places” .So I haven’t commented on those links not because of double standard but because they have nothing to do with the point I am making .I am not arguing that the church is sole producer of pedophiles. What I point out is given their record , I personal find it total hypocritical to come out on the moral high ground.

when facts show the Church has always tried to tackle the problem –.

The truth of any changes that the church has made regarding their treatment of sexual abuse by the hands of their clergy, come from external social pressure as the gravity and sheer scale of the problem has come to light .There where many years when the upper echelons of the church hierarchy knew full well the extent of the problem. Instead making sweeping and radical changes they instigated a policy of secrecy and cover up , often to the detriment of the child abused. So whatever PR is put out there now for me is empty words, that had their chance to changes things and they choose not to. Instead of working with chosen states they worked to obstruct not assist.
Regarding social benefits; I do not know if your are playing to be ignorant of the benefits single parents are entitled to in Malta. Such social benefits exist for some reason. Wonder why?
It more the sentence structure makes it hard to work out exactly your point .What is your point? Single parents get benefits if there income is less that certain amount .I assume the Maltese state think people bringing children up on their own are at a disadvantage money wise and they choose to give them money to balance that out, as they do with other disadvantaged groups, such as disabled, mentally ill ect.. I was trying to work out what your point was in relation to single women not being able to adopt. .What are you questioning or querying, there motive to have kids ?If they really need that benefit? Are you saying the fact they get benefit , in of itself shows as a single they struggle enough finically, so how can adding a child to that be good thing? If that is your point I think it goes back to what I was saying in previous post. If a single man or women gets the approval to adopt from the board , then will have had to show they are finically stable enough to support the adopted child .If some government benefit is somehow part of that evidence to support themselves, I am not sure what the problem is with that.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 17th, 12:59

@Magnus Mitchell

“As I am sure no doubt you are willing to admit the same bias yourself.”

While you say only the part of the story you favor, I say the full story; people in the Church have done mistakes in the past, however the Church has today become an example of how to handle alleged cases of child abuses and works hand in hand with host states where ever such allegations where made.

“There were many years when the upper echelons of the church hierarchy knew full well the extent of the problem.”

I said that in my previous reply (“admittedly and sadly not always in the right way.”) and in this reply as well (“people in the Church have done mistakes in the past”); What you say is a fact and no one is trying to deny it. I guess repeating it ad infinitum makes you feel somewhat better …

“I was trying to work out what your point was”

You really didn’t need to put a lot of thinking. The point is that since the state recognizes the hardship of single parenting, there is nothing wrong in having a state (or institution responsible for adoption) to favor adoptions to couples rather than to single people. As I said before, adoption is not about giving a child to someone; but about providing a family to a child.

Marco Cremona

Feb 16th, 16:36

My wife and I recently adopted two infants from the same orphanage. Contrary to public perception IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to adopt a child from Ethiopia and the Maltese nuns have to literally fight tooth-and-nail and negotiate with the local authorities to get hold of adoptable children. In truth, this orphanage is the only possibility for Maltese people to adopt children at an affordable price. Adopting from anywhere else (including other agencies in Ethiopia) costs 20 - 30 times more than adopting from this particular orphanage - not because it is in Ethiopia (an impoverished country) but because this orphanage does not charge thousands of euros in commissions and profit as private agencies do. A first class service at NO CHARGE.

The same orphanage also provides children to married couples (singles?) from other countries, so there is absolutely NO SHORTAGE OF DEMAND for children to be adopted. Moreover, I understand that the ORPHANAGE has NO OBLIGATION (moral, legal or otherwise) to provide CHILDREN to MALTESE people only. In fact, in some ways, the Maltese have been given preferential treatment over people from other countries for the simple reason that the orphanage is run by Maltese nuns - which is only natural.

I am not a lawyer and I do not want to get into the merits of the legal argument on whether the orphanage can choose as to who to give children to, and the basis of that choice.

However, in view of the fact that demand (for children from Ethiopia) by far exceeds supply, the orphanage is certainly in a position to 'give preference' to married couples over single. Indeed, there is absolutely no possibility of an adoptable infant not being found a home with a married couple. Which also means that the orphanage will never be faced with a choice of having to choose between leaving an (adoptable) infant in the orphanage or giving the child to a Maltese single person.

I say that this article is unfortunate because as a consequence of this issue, the Curia or the Maltese nuns who run the orphanage may decide to not run the potential risk of giving children to single Maltese people (and therefore potentially gay couples), and close down the adoption service to Maltese people in general. I believe that it is within their right to do so.

But what are the consequences? This is probably the best orphanage in the whole of Ethiopia - Maltese people who have been to other orphanages can vouch for this. I understand that all the children supplied to Maltese people over the years are healthy. It is also the ONLY access for Maltese couples to adopt children at an affordable price (remember that the state does not provide any financial support to people wanting to adopt, but is then considering giving a free IVF service!), The closing down of this orphanage to Maltese couples would be disastrous, not to the children themselves (because the children will very easily be adopted by couples from other countries) but to the Maltese couples.

I really hope that it will not come to this.

C Briffa

Feb 16th, 18:17

Well said Marco.

M Xuereb

Feb 17th, 11:02

Hi Marco,

What you say is true: the demand for INFANTS is higher than the supply. But what you don't say it also true: Older children have a hard time finding a home, precisely because most married couples want infants. Many single people who have adopted from this orphanage (both locally and abroad) have adopted older children and have given them a very good life - possibly an even better life than they could have been offered by most couples.

It does not necessarily follow that a married couple is always preferrable to a single person. There are married couples who have very limited resources (not just financial) and who are hardly able to provide a decent upbringing to their children (whether adopted or otherwise), for a variety of social, economic and psychological reasons. And there are single persons who have ample resources and are well capable of raising children who are happy, healthy, well-educated and morally sound. The screening process that takes place before couples and single persons are approved by the Adoption Board is there precisely to ensure that those who can proceed to adopt are doing so with the right motivation and have the necessary skills and resources to provide a good upbringing.

It would also be sad if we had to look at the possibility of adoption from this particular orphanage as the cheapest adoption option for couples. The value of adopting from this orphange lies precisely in that it provides the possibility for adoptive families to keep contact with this orphange and the Sisters who run it and to help support those other children who for a variety of reasons spend a good part of their childhood at the orphanage.

Finally, I have heard several stories of couples asking for the youngest babies possible and the "lightest" babies available - requests that I am sure this orphanage does not entertain. And I have also heard wonderful stories of single parents adopting older children, irrespective of how dark they were, and providing them with a home, a lot of love, excellent care, a good life, a good education, lots of opportunities, and a family made up of their own extended family and a circle of close, well-meaning friends. The sort of talk that is running throuh these pages does a great disservice to these children and their families. Let us hope that the Curia finds in these positive experiences the inspiration to rediscuss their preferences and provide more opportunities, especially for those older children who are harder to place.

Marco Cremona

Feb 17th, 15:51

M. Xuereb,

I am sure that there are numerous single persons that can bring up a child as good as/better than a married couple but one has to take a decision of the basis of the information available at the moment in time. So, all other things being equal, and given a choice, I would prefer giving the child to a married couple than to a single person. Wouldn't you?

Yes, there is always a higher demand for infants than children, but my impression is that most of the children in the orphanage are not adoptable (health, disability or administrative issues). However I do not have the statistics in hand to substantiate my impression.

There are various factors that are driving towards the adoption of older children, and not infants. Firstly, given the increasing demand for infants can probably lead to a long waiting time, which provides the opportunity for adoptive parents to reconsider their plans for an infant(s) and opt for an older child. Secondly, most countries specify that the age difference between the younger of the two parents and the child should not exceed 40 years. Given that people are postponing their plans to 'settle down', and have kids, and therefore adopt, most adoptive couples will not be able to adopt infants but can adopt children.

"There are married couples who have very limited resources (not just financial) and who are hardly able to provide a decent upbringing to their children (whether adopted or otherwise), for a variety of social, economic and psychological reasons." The screening process by Appogg ensures that such couples would not be eligible to adopt.

"And I have also heard wonderful stories of single parents adopting older children, irrespective of how dark they were, and providing them with a home, a lot of love, excellent care, a good life, a good education, lots of opportunities, and a family made up of their own extended family and a circle of close, well-meaning friends." I absolutely do not doubt this.

"Finally, I have heard several stories of couples asking for the youngest babies possible and the "lightest" babies available", I have never heard of requests for "light babies". Why would anyone want a light baby anyway?

Magnus Mitchell

Feb 16th, 16:27

Firstly to it bring to this discussion the issue of paedophilia (which was littered through the last article about this) just reflect a gross level of ignorance and sensitivity to the issue. As you are immediately associating somehow with gay men or women with paedophiles “ let the gays in and next with be the child molester” shame on you .Also let’s not forget where the hornets nest of paedophiles have thrived is within church run institution, how ironic .
All that aside ,If we consider the welfare of the children to paramount and the most important thing in the whole process you then have to look at the data as to what we already know about children raised in same sex households. As it stands in America all the variable that measure happy and healthy children seem to be more prevalent in same sex adoption http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html . So to end up with the children of sex couple is blessing not a curse, righteous hypocritical morality aside .
Then you have the question of do we or do we not live in secular state or catholic theocracy .If a gay man or women has the right by Maltese law, the Ethiopia also allows it by law, then the Catholic church are denying the possibility of a loving same sex couple the right to have family due to their own prejudice and middle ages mentality. Does the church rulings trump Maltese law or the European human rights? Then we have the issue of single men or women who are not gay or couples having to apply as single being punished as the church attempt to weed out the “gays”
I have to “normal” straight parents and I grew up in serious dysfunctional household .I know for myself I would much preferred to grow up in loving, open , tolerant and kind family with the same sex partners , than dysfunctional “proper” family that look fine out the outside but is rottoning within.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 17:14

“let’s not forget where the hornets nest of pedophiles have thrived is within church”

Pedophiles exist in all corners of society. If you also read the articles on times of malta not related with the Church you would have found at least another three cases of child abuse (again Church haters seem to have had little to say in those articles, these days it seems as if an abuse is only an abuse if done by a priest.).

“then the Catholic church are denying the possibility of a loving same sex couple the right to have family due to their own prejudice and middle ages mentality”

The whole article was about single persons being allowed to adopt. A journalist (maybe through in depth investigation and hopefully not through simple assumptions) said that this was to avoid having gay couples adopt. Really and truly gay couple adoption in Malta (and in many other EU states; so we avoid having someone call us backwards) is not possible.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption#Summary_of_laws_by_jurisdiction

In Malta single people are allowed to adopt; although I personally do question that strategy when indeed we have many single parents who apply for social benefits simply because it is hard to raise a child when on your own!!

Ms. P.M Graham

Feb 16th, 17:22

Mr Aquilina, are you a single parent?

Mario Pace

Feb 16th, 18:51

@ Mitchell,

It seems that people like Mitchell are only happy to mention pedophiles in connection with catholic priests, but when it comes to single persons adopting children, he does not want the issue of pedophilia to be mentioned as if there's no risk of pedophiles wanting to adopt children specifically without the supervision of an adult partner for their obvious reasons. That's what I call gross hypocrisy.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 19:36

@Ms. P.M Graham
No, but please tell me Ms. P.M Graham; did I lie? Isn't what I said true? that in Malta many single parents apply for social benefits? I know single parents and indeed it is thanks to the strong families behind them that they actually manage to continue with their lives; such as having a job. Others, not so lucky, usually have to rely on fostering services.

Ms. P.M Graham

Feb 16th, 19:43

Mr Aqulina: I think your opinion may be media led. I know a whole lot of single parents who are the strongest people on earth and would sell their souls before claiming benefits.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 22:28

@Ms. P.M Graham
"I think your opinion may be media led"

As I said I know single parents who take social benefits. Social benefits are not wrong unless abused. However I am sure that in a society as diverse as ours you'll find people who do not claim social services; although refusing free money is not a very common trait of us Maltese :)

Robert Callus

Feb 16th, 16:22

Archbishop Paul Cremona “expressed his opinion with a religious person who is involved in an orphanage in Ethiopia, that it would be preferable for children to be adopted by married couples”

I disagree with Mgr Cremona's statement but can live with it. But here is another issue in question.

Do we have a problem of too much demand for Ethiopian orphans and not enough supply for married couples? Because if not, (and I think it's not) this argument doesn't hold water. The married couples will adopt the kids and the singles can adopt them too. What is "preferable" is not an issue any longer.

If it isn't a question of demand, then Mgr Cremona is not only discriminating against gays but allowing his prejudice condemn poor Ethiopian children to live in poverty and fear when they could have had a life in a safe European home.

Marco Cremona

Feb 16th, 16:39

Robert Callus,

The opposite is actually true.

The demand for children (particularly infants) by far exceeds the supply. I talk from our personal experience after having adopted two children from the same orphanage last year.

Yes there are numerous children in the orphanage of ages from newborn to 16 but who for some reason or another cannot be adopted (disability, health, administrative issues) - which is no different from the situation in Maltese orphanages.

Robert Callus

Feb 16th, 17:07

Thanks for the clarification Marco. I still disapprove of the discrimination and believe things should be decided on a case by case basis. However this way it is much less sinister than having Ethiopian children not being adopted because of prejudice.

Ms. P.M Graham

Feb 16th, 15:58

As the Mother of a small football team that grows on a regular basis, who is also Gay I get so ticked off with comments the likes of some below, that i was going to repost, but to be honest it irks me just to acknowledge them for anything other than blind ignorance.

How can anyone justify comments such as, "influencing children" be remotely accurate. It's an absolute nonsense. If that were true there would be no Gay people............. but some can't see the idiocy of their comments.

My family, who I have been raising for the past 31 years, single handedly, (till I met my Partner) range from 29 to 2years old. They are all happy, well adjusted, socially adept, intelligent, individual souls and NOT ONE of them is Gay, in fact my eldest at 29, having her career solidified, her home set up and her Marriage solid is now expecting her first baby. My son is due to be married soon and I also have another daughter who is focusing on her career before she and her husband decide on children.

I have also never in my life taken a single parent benefit or social security payment.

To the Article in question: The only ones to suffer are the children. Shame on the people who have taken this decision.

"A Maltese Church-run Ethiopian orphanage"

That just says it all!

I don't believe for a minute that this is a decision made by Appogg.

The one outstanding quality that children raised by Gay parents is that their ability to accept differences is second to none. Shame the same can't be said of so many of their peers.

Joseph Cilia

Feb 16th, 13:48

In response to Mr Loporto, please do not make a fool of yourself, I am a a very happy Gay man of 25, I come from two straight parents, have two straight brothers and always lived and was reared in the same household with the same regulations and same everything... My family was always Christian - although I now follow my own choice of spirituality - but no one influenced me in being gay.... Nevertheless I am so... so what is the point in all this talk.... simple I am gay because I was born so... can I influence you to become gay if I lived with you? I very much doubt that and such arguments are equal as saying that if you lived with a bull all your life you might one day grow a pair of horns. Please think before you speak or risk ridicule.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 16th, 13:38

I do NOT hate the Church/Religion. What is the point of hating anything? The important thing to do is to understand whatever it is one is supposed to be hating. Hatred would damage me, and my innards. So for me it is not an option. I just happen to see it as yet another addiction. And we all know that addicts defend their addiction, dont we?! Have you ever tried taking a bottle of whisky with just half an inch of the stuff still in it, away from an alcoholic. Meaning: whisky in itself is harmless enough as long as it is in the bottle. I just refuse to drink it to make my life feel easier. In other words, whisky as a prop. Like Religion. That said, ghaliex il-Knisja qieghda f'hofra, u qed tkompli thaffer?.

Elsewhere in toady's Times of Malta there is a report of a cab-driver, a karrozzin owner being charged for negligence ending in his horse dying of dehydration. I can see them coming, the comments, this in Catholic Malta. It has nothing to do with Catholic. This happens to be a man, presumably baptised into the Catholic faith, and who also happens to be misguided and ignorant and selfish. Nothing to do with Catholic. Or Malta.

What have karrozzini, Bugibba, whisky, Catholicism, adoption, Ethiopia, Malta, serious addiction, ignorance got in common? Nothing. And everything. You see, using a bit of lateral thinking, the connections are obvious. It is hard work of course (anything worthwhile is) but worth the effort. Because you are worth it. But it is up to the individual to assert their worth. From then on, I'm out of it.

Alvaro Santiago

Feb 16th, 13:05

I thought a child mainly needs love and security to grow into a good natured, well adjusted person, no matter where these might come from... Yet apparently people still feel entitled to use children and their helplessness for whatever policy they want to push. Please stop using children to further your own self righteous agendas. If you want to stop homosexual couples from adopting, just do so under the usual reasons people give...

Pamela Borg

Feb 16th, 12:57

@ Silvio Loporto
Quoting Mr Loporto's comment: 'I fully agree with this decision. Gays should never be allowed to adopt children,they will surely influence the innocent children and it will only result of having more of them around,with all the resulting consequences. '
You can't be serious. We're in the year 2012 where the majority of people should have quite a high IQ level but then you read a comment like Mr Loporto's & you think we're back in the stone age.
Who are you to say that gay people shouldn't adopt or have kids & what makes you think the 'innocent' children will be influenced. This is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my whole life. I really hope you're like 90 years old with this mentality.
Let's see, gay people are born to straight people....so what happened there?
I know many gay parents, locally & overseas & they make the best parents & if you check statistics you'll find that children saised by gay parents are happier kids not to mention that no abuse was ever found.
The Church needs to back off & let the world just be. The church needs to stop brainwashing people. Can't people see that the church can only have people on its side by brainwashing & why do you think that is?

William Flynn

Feb 16th, 12:55

I know two heroic women who lost their husbands. One of the ladies had four children ranging from 12 years of age to 7 and the other six children ranging from 16 to 8 at the time of their bereavement. The latter became homeless in the dark depths of World War II losing everything and leaving the entire family possessing only the clothes they were wearing; and the former during the Great Depression.

They continued and succeeded single handed with no pensions in those days. They were my single parent widowed grandmothers. They were the unsung heroines, the salt of the earth from which my tribe sprang. I am so proud of them,

If a single person cannot possibly be trusted to bring up children how did both my grandmothers manage to bring up their families on their own when they lost their husbands when still young with young children and didn't remarry?

They are the proof that single parents can be just as successful in growing a family. And if a widow can rise to the challenge on her own why can’t a gainfully employed single person cope with bringing up an adopted child?

Joseph Grima

Feb 16th, 12:38

We're back to the Church of the sixties. Still smarting form the national rejection of the Divorce Referendum when the quarter of a million spent by Malta's rich diocese proved worthless, the Bishops are now resorting to one more Interdett. This foot stomping Church administration is now interdicting gays and singles for providing a home to underprivileged children from other countries and of living happier lives themselves.
The Maltese Church continues to prove how irrelevant it has become in people's lives and how embarrassingly blind it is to the way people think today. Those single persons who still want to adopt from Ethiopia should take the Maltese Bishops to court and challenge the legal validity of this interdett. So much for the Church's apology over Gonzi's interdett in the sixties. Jesus had one appropriate phrase for the Pharisees: Whitewashed Graves. Oqbra Mbajjda

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 15:52

The Church sees the long lasting benefits rather than the "I want it now" philosophy that governs so many today!! The Church sees children as children, while for some adoption should be like going to the SPCA and select a dog or cat. There are many who laughed in face of the Church when it said capitalism is not so good; look at us now; look at the current situation where democratic governments have to work like communist governments in order to ensure that capitalism “might” survive!!

Simon Ciantar

Feb 16th, 12:16

The world in which we live in needs to know where to stop. Ok Gay people have the right to live their own life the way they seem fit but as long as this does not effect negatively third parties. A gay couple is not a "natural" couple whatever anyone says so just as such a couple can never have children naturally so it should never be allowed to bring up children , you cannot have the cake and eat it. Even non gay singles should not be allowed to raise children .... as always its about rights and never about obiligations and effects on third parties....

Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)

Feb 16th, 11:43

Contrary to the generally-expressed opinion, I agree with preference being given to couples over singles.

A family 'normally' consists of 'one-male/one-female' parents. Their child, biological or adopted, benefits from that 'natural' complete amalgam that every infant is entitled to. Most single or common-gender aspirants will no-doubt concede that they themselves grew up in that type of environment.

A family consisting of one parent does not fall within that maxim so the alternative should be preferred.

I think this present issue has more to do with the exposure of the church to the potential future charge of 'negligence' against it, once that child grows up into a 'not-so-helpless' adult capable of suing his benefactors for placing him/her with a single parent or a common-gendered couple. This would be more so if abuse by the adoptive 'singles' were ever alleged.

As a matter of interest, when saying that only 20 Maltese-born infants were adopted out of 175, does that include infants adopted by couples abroad? Can it be true that in FOUR YEARS, only 20 children were born out of wedlock in Malta and given up for adoption?

Ramon Casha

Feb 16th, 12:19

No, this is not a simple preference, this is an outright ban. And may I remind you that in most countries - including Ethiopia - there are more children waiting to be adopted than there are people willing to adopt them. Therefore, for every single person denied the possibility of adopting a child, the church is condemning a child to never be adopted.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 14:14

@Ramon Casha
Adoption is not a service done to a person or couple, but a service done to the child. Can a single parent in today’s society really bring up a child on his own? If yes then how do you explain the social benefits single parents get in our country?

Ramon Casha

Feb 16th, 19:33

Obviously yes - they can and they do. The social services are there to lend a hand.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 22:37

@Ramon Casha
I wonder why so many single parents apply for social benefits then!? The government (irrelevant of colour) knows the hardship of being a single parent and for that reason the state provides social benefits (which is not always just in monetary form).

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 11:35

Obviously the very well known church haters (I will not name them we all know who they are) did not even read till the second paragraph...

“The country’s (Ethiopia) laws do not refuse adoptions by Maltese single parents. However, the contact through which Maltese are adopting in Ethiopia is currently accepting couples only,” Appoġġ Agency said.

Such – again very well known – Church haters, who some of them call themselves liberals (although they clearly have not a clue of what that means) will tell you and try to convince you that although they have all the right in the world to have a personal opinion, the Archbishop cannot have a personal opinion, and unlike them, the Archbishop cannot even dare share his opinion!! But hey, these are the same guys who call themselves democratic, against censorship, and in favor of equal rights!!

The Church and its officials have all the right in the world to share their opinion. There are laws, which local and foreign courts will decide if where broken or not!!

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 11:42

Yes, Joseph, the Church has every right to its opinion. And equally, we have every right to criticise them for it.

michael scicluna

Feb 16th, 11:42

people dont hate the church......people hate the people that RUN/RUIN it.

Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)

Feb 16th, 11:45

I agree with you sir and the word 'bandwagon' comes to mind.

Jo Camm

Feb 16th, 11:46

Mr Cassar - Of course you have the right to criticise 'anyone' but, please, be realistic in your criticism and not criticising just for the sake of criticism.

Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)

Feb 16th, 11:52

@ Kenneth Cassar and Michael Scicluna:

A critic expresses his criticism but a hate-monger prompts collective hatred.

"I disagree" and "You must disagree" are totally different expressions.

Mark Grech

Feb 16th, 13:32

Irrespective of the law, the children must always come first. And it beggars belief that the welfare and emotional well being of a child is better served by remaining in an orphanage, rather than being loved and cared for by a single person, be they straight or gay.
And study after study shows that the adopted children of gay parents do just as well as those of straight parents. What is needed is a caring, loving environment.
Everything else is sheer prejudice and bigotry.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 13:44

@Mark Grech
In the country you and I live, single parents (single mothers or other) qualify for social benefits because as people we believe it is hard for them to raise children on their own! A hardship that affects not only the single parent but also the children involved. Single parents, who do not have the luck of a family behind them, finish up having to use fostering services. But then it is ok for a single PERSON to adopt. If from one side as a country we recognize that it is hard for a single parent to raise children, then how can we from the other side allow single person adoptions?

Mr L Vella

Feb 16th, 14:02

I have to agree with Mr. Aquilina here. The bishop has the right to say whatever he wants. The real problem is the unthinking masses who actually listen to what the bishop has to say and make it their way of life instead of treating it all as a bad joke.

Mark Grech

Feb 16th, 15:36

@Joseph Aquilina
You're misrepresenting the issue. Most gay couples adopt as a single person because first, there is no legal structure locally to validate their relationship and, secondly, they find the prejudice & bigotry throws obstacles to they adopting as a couple, so they go down the individual route, although in reality, most are couples. And most gay couples I know who have adopted are loving, caring parents who adore their children and who do not rely on the state to support them.
So my charge of prejudice and bigotry remains.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 15:41

@ Jo Camm:

"Mr Cassar - Of course you have the right to criticise 'anyone' but, please, be realistic in your criticism and not criticising just for the sake of criticism".

I always do.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 15:42

@ Joseph Vassallo (Bugibba):

"A critic expresses his criticism but a hate-monger prompts collective hatred".

I agree.

T Cassar

Feb 17th, 14:19

When the Archbishop expresses an opinion and this is adopted into policy, it can no longer be called a 'personal opinion'. If the article is correct, the orphanage has adopted a policy which is not in sync with the law in Ethiopia or Malta but which is affecting adoption procedures nonetheless. May I suggest that no amount of twisting of this fact by apologists can hide this......

Carmelo Aquilina

Feb 16th, 11:32

most people given the choice between staying in an orphanage and having a single parent would choose the single parent of whatever sexuality

Dorielle Soler

Feb 16th, 11:16

Most want to be seen as politically correct when commenting publicly, but if push came to shove and they were in a position whereby they had to choose a family for their OWN children, they would want a heterosexual couple to adopt them and not a gay couple. And addio political correctness in that case !

James Borg

Feb 16th, 11:44

Dorielle how silly! Please, if someone is in a position where they are giving up their own child I would say they have given up their rights to what they would prefer! Clearly people desperate for children will love a child more than the ones giving up the child regardless of sexuality

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Feb 16th, 11:05

I imagine one can always trust children with Roman Catholic priests ... as if! If I had any children, I would not trust them with anyone wearing a Roman Catholic collar, be that person a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a bishop, a provincial or what have you! Or with saints for that matter.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 12:34

A child can be abused by anyone regardless of his or her profession. Found the following through a simple search on this site ...

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120107/local/Six-years-for-man-who-lured-boys-into-prostitution.401289
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110405/local/21-year-old-charged-with-corrupting-girl-six-years-younger.358403
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120107/local/Six-years-for-man-who-lured-boys-into-prostitution.401289

btw - It seems that you and William Flynn have very little to comment about when the Church is not involved in abuse cases!!! wonder why!?

Pamela Borg

Feb 16th, 13:02

Well said. How can the church say who can adopt & who can't when they're the ones abusing of kids. Where have we ever heard of gay people abusing kids?
The church should smell its own underarms before pointing the finger.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 13:18

@Pamela Borg
Find the meaning of the word "generalizing"

William Flynn

Feb 16th, 11:00

Gerie/Gerry Cowie/Kawi is informing everyone that, yes you got it in one, Ramon Casha is a humanist. But he gives us a scoop on a scoop. He moreover informs us Ramon Casha is, wait for it… are you ready?....a PRACTISING humanist. And what is that?

I know what that is so I’ll explain:
A practising humanist is a humanist who goes to humanist church every Sunday and has a humanist confession every Saturday and says the humanist rosary every day. He obeys the precepts of the humanist church blindly and listens to and observes every word of the humanist pope. And who is the humanist pope, you might ask? Well I’ll let His Humanism say…it's not for me to say.

Why did Gerie/Gerry Cowie/Kawi require 7 lines to “paraphrase” Ramon Casha’s 2 line comment?
And why is Gerie/Gerry Cowie/Kawi asking for an explanation from Mike Hunt. Seems a straightforward enough one line comment to me; and it is in plain English.

Philip Bonello

Feb 16th, 10:55

BTW, male and female getting together to beget children is essential to the existence of the human race.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 11:11

Who's stopping them?

Philip Bonello

Feb 16th, 10:48

Somebody has finally seen sense. I do not mind singles whatever their orientation but children NEED the love of both the mother and the father which are equal but different. No single person can give both.

William Calleja

Feb 16th, 10:55

There's a whole lot more evidence of domestic abuse on children from so called 'normal families' than anything else. To say that children need both is a fallacy based solely on hunches and feelings while the facts tell us otherwise. There is no evidence at all to suggest that single parents or, 'abnormal' families are any less proficient at raising children. To state that children need both a mother or a father and anything that deviates is doomed to failure is magical traditional thinking. Children need two things, love and attention, it doesn't matter who supplies them.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 11:10

I trust you don't realise how offensive your comment is to widows and widowers.

James Borg

Feb 16th, 11:47

So what happens if a parent dies?? Are they then considered an abnormal family?!

Pamela Borg

Feb 16th, 13:04

Mr Bonello, I assume you have a brain. Use it & consult it before you post comments

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 13:30

@Kenneth Cassar
Why do you think single parents qualify for social benefits? It is not easy to be a single parent. And when it is not easy for the parent, it is not easy for the child. Remember adoption is not there to give a child to someone (self-seeking action); but to provide a family to a child (philanthropic action).

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 15:47

@ Joseph Aquilina:

"Why do you think single parents qualify for social benefits? It is not easy to be a single parent".

It's also not easy being parents at a couple living on unemployment benefits alone. On the otherhand, it is very easy to be a rich single parent. So what you say is irrelevant. Should we perform a means test and take away children from married couples who can't afford them?

"And when it is not easy for the parent, it is not easy for the child".

That much is obvious. But you're making the mistaken generalisation that it is ALWAYS easier to raise a child as a couple than as a single parent, no matter the circumstances.

"Remember adoption is not there to give a child to someone (self-seeking action); but to provide a family to a child (philanthropic action)".

I would say to give the child a home and a good upbringing, but yes, I'd agree with you there.

Martin Borg

Feb 16th, 10:14

Despicable.... I hope Mgrs Paul Cremona and Mario Grech are ashamed of themselves for denying gay people from exercising a civil right. Then again, I am old enough to know they will not, and they won't lose a minute of sleep over it either. Big shame.

Franco Farrugia

Feb 16th, 10:30

No, it is not 'despicable'. Cremona merely gave his opinion - a preference, and I think we agree on that. He is not 'denying' anything to anyone.
Anyway, get it into your head that this is not a queston of a 'civil right' but it is a responsibility. Nobody has a right to children. Nobody has a right to raising children. It is a responsibility. Chew on that.

D Gatt

Feb 16th, 10:42

Farrugia I think you should be the one chewing on something here. Something along the line that whenever a person has a considerable power and influence over the general population (as in the case of Cremona), they should be extremely careful on what opinions they vent out. As they say in a famous comic-book / failed movie "with great power, comes great responsibility".

Ms Maria Vella

Feb 16th, 10:50

What is despicable? just because he has different views to you?

Well said Franco Farrugia

Philip Bonello

Feb 16th, 10:54

Any male who intends to beget a child has to combine with a female. This is common throughout the animal kingdom. A child NEEDS both maternal and paternal love, which are equal but different. No single person can give both.

Mgrs Cremona and Grech were only stating the obvious.

silvio loporto

Feb 16th, 11:12

I fully agree with this decision.
Gays should never be allowed to adopt children,they will surely influence the innocent children and it will only result of having more of them around,with all the resulting consequences.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 16th, 11:13

@ Philip Bonello:

So shall we start taking away children from widows and widowers? Or perhaps force them to remarry?

Maria Borg

Feb 16th, 11:24

@Mr Bonello and co: You are assuming that human beings should be categorised as animals...when we are not! Humans are not animals specifically based on the fact that we do not have a sole purpose/aim in life to reproduce. Surely none of you live a life based on this! If this is the case you are not only discriminating against gay people but also infertile people, those who do not actually want children...or even those who have taken a vow of chastity! Surely they must be living in vain and going against 'what nature intended' as well, along with homosexual couples.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 13:33

@Kenneth Cassar
As a society (it seems these days we live in a society only when we need it) people help each other out; Democratic governments like ours provide social benefits to single mothers. This in order to somehow (although never completely) try to “replace” (the word is definitely not right) the missing parent. So no we do not take children from single parents unless the parents clearly show they are not able to take care of the children (indeed happens).

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 17th, 06:41

@ Joseph Aquilina:

"As a society (it seems these days we live in a society only when we need it) people help each other out;"

That much is as obvious as it is irrelevant. It also destroys the argument that single people shouldn't be parents, when "people (can) help each other out".

"Democratic governments like ours provide social benefits to single mothers. This in order to somehow (although never completely) try to “replace” (the word is definitely not right) the missing parent".

WRONG. Social benefits to single parents are not given as a replacement to the "missing parent". They are given to make raising the child affordable. Money can never replace a person.

"So no we do not take children from single parents unless the parents clearly show they are not able to take care of the children (indeed happens)".

So you must agree that single parents should be allowed to raise/adopt children, if they are capable of taking care of children.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 17th, 13:40

@ Joseph Aquilina:

“That much is as obvious as it is irrelevant. It also destroys the argument that single people shouldn't be parents, when "people (can) help each other out".”

It is not irrelevant; it shows that the state considers the hardship of single parenting; which is why it provides social benefits to people who fall under this category.

“ Money can never replace a person.”

- did you notice the other few words between the round brackets?
Nothing can replace a person, but social benefits (not only in monetary form) help to reduce the hardship resulting from having to raise children on your own.

“So you must agree that single parents should be allowed to raise/adopt children, if they are capable of taking care of children.”

And you must agree that there is nothing wrong in favoring couples since the state itself considers single parenting as a category of society that needs help!

William Flynn

Feb 16th, 10:09

Beats me how a gay person may become a priest (and I personally know of at least 3 contemporaries of mine who have); but they are unable to adopt a child.

But that's what happens when religion takes over. They want to do good works fine, they can;nobody forces them one way or the other; but never allow religion to make the rules? Never.

Give them an inch....

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Feb 16th, 11:03

This is how closeted gay men compensate for their sexuality. They do their darnest to appear anti-gay. I wonder how many of the contributors to this column who repeatedly defend the Church are married and with children and not leading a double life and not being closeted homosexuals.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 16th, 12:05

So the biggest enemies of homosexuals are homosexuals!!??

Gerry Cowie

Feb 16th, 10:09

Ramon Casha, as a practising humanist is of course going to vent his spleen over this issue! He is not in a position to decide what an orphanage may or may not do. Clearly it is the involvement of the Church which he wishes to draw attention to here, though he says in an aside that any type of institution should not make such decisions.

It remains to be seen whether or not the ability of the Church - or any other organisation - to decide upon who should adopt children is "an abuse of their position". Surely Ramon does not want to see children farmed out to absolutely anybody without some rules and controls in place for the benefit of the children!

Can "Mike Hunt" explain his rather odd comment?

D Gatt

Feb 16th, 10:40

Well I think Casha is actually cross (excuse the pun) about the non separation of church and state. If the government wants to pass a law limiting to whom adoption should go is fine. But having an exterior 'not-for-profit' (again excuse the pun here!) organisation trying to instill it's beliefs and practices on outside institution (be who ever may) is despicable an clearly an abuse of power and control over the general population.
This NFP is gaining nothing by influencing the decision making process here, it is only denying the simple human right of each and every human being of having a fruitful and content existence.
Also I do not think Hunt needs to explain himself any better. The use of that metaphor was spot on in this case.

Ramon Casha

Feb 16th, 12:22

Oh I don't have to practice humanism, I've become so good at it I can do it with my eyes closed.

Sarah Baldacchino

Feb 16th, 10:01

yet another part of society that will become alienated....

Nathan Azzopardi

Feb 16th, 09:46

If the Ethiopian government got word that the nuns running the orphanage were giving kids to gays they'd stop the service pronto.

I visit Ethiopia regularly, know the country's policies and how strict they are where adoption is concerned. An Italian agency working for a Milan couple last summer got their permit blocked due to a bureaucratic glitch. I can only imagine how easily the sisters' work would be stopped for the reason stated above.

I wonder if Ms Bezzina has ever visited Ethiopia. She should; it will give her a taste of what living with a truly "Big brother" government feels like. But then again, what does she care? Her concern's to churn the speculation mill and point fingers.

Maria Camilleri

Feb 16th, 10:13

How presumptuous and condescending of you to think that Ms. Bezzina has never been to Ethopia and that you are the enlightened one.

Ramon Casha

Feb 16th, 10:27

If Ethiopia has a law that prohibits the adoption of children by gay persons, then the orphanage should operate within those laws. This is different This is a case where the organisation arbitrarily decided to punish single people as well as the children in order to push its prejudices on society. That is why I said that the function of operating an orphanage should be disassociated from the function of authorising adoptions.

Nathan Azzopardi

Feb 16th, 11:13

Ms Camilleri, I am not the enlightened one; just someone who has experienced things first hand. Reading through her blog and noting how she emphasizes how things are run on this side of the fence as opposed to things in Ethiopia itself is enough proof that she didn't even deign to look up the Maltese-run orphanage's telephone number (which is also listed on the website set up by the specific orphanage's supporters) and call to inquire after more information. Rather, she did what she always does, that is, shot things right from her head and gut.

Ramon Casha

Feb 16th, 09:40

The functions of running an orphanage, and authorising adoptions need to be separated. The fact that the church - or any other organisation - runs an orphanage should not entitle them to choose who gets to adopt and who doesn't.

Well done to Alison Bezzina for exposing this shocking abuse of their position.

Richard Curmi

Feb 16th, 10:13

Dear Ramon,
what is shocking for you might not be for others. Come now, do not be so sensational. You really should have read the article till the end!

Carmel Serracino-inglott

Feb 16th, 16:28

It is shocking to those who are against the church, against GOD. We donate money to the directors because they are acting in the name of GOD. This is a proof that the church(es) are the ones who help without expecting any compensation ( at least in this world) . Why always the same people speak against the church?

Magnus Mitchell

Feb 16th, 22:10

@Carmel Serracino-inglott
Why is it always the same people defending those who behaviour and action are defenceless. There are part of the church that provide invaluable services across I whole spectrum of society .It was liberation theologyt that started whole movement after Vatican Two to that was driven by the goal of social justice for all. Many priests and nuns on the front line across south American protecting the poor and unrepresented. You can still see this taking place now in Malta with the work the Jesuit refugee centre does .So I have no problem acknowledging the important work does but the clergy out there really doing some good are not same as the pious, rigid, and dogmatic catholic church hierarchy that there preaching and moralising whilst turning a blind eye to how horrific act of there own. This is highlighted in what happen in Spain during the reign of the fascist dictator Franco. At the time the church and (now still do) aligned and vocally supported with this brutal and oppressive regime. As they saw in better that people are persecuted and murdered living without any human rights, than having the republican/socialist legalise gay marriage or letting gays adopt type of thing. It’s that type of hypocrisy that is ever present today ie its better third world Africa is wiped out with Aids then it is to encourage the use of contraceptives .In the face of that you then have the church apologist out here on the blogosphere feeling all persecuted and victimised because people have the cheek to point out the blinding obvious hypocrisy and double standards. Although its cliché thing to ask but do you really believe is Jesus came back today he be proud and happy with the church hierarchy , their wealth, their power and the judgment they dispense?

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 17th, 06:46

@ Carmel Serracino-Inglott:

"It is shocking to those who are against the church, against GOD"

Good to know that the church is your God.

D Gatt

Feb 16th, 09:21

un-freaking believable...

Mike Hunt

Feb 16th, 09:33

On the contrary ... I would have never expected any better from the wolves in church clothing.

D Gatt

Feb 16th, 09:55

Agree with you on that. Just thought that after all the spotlight they are getting from their overall demeaning behavior they would have thought twice about doing something like this... After all we are in a so called modern society not the dark ages.

Carmel Serracino-inglott

Feb 16th, 16:23

I object calling wolves in the church . I am not entering the polemic of adoption by single parent BUT I think that firstly it is the institute taking care of those children that should decide whether to allow a child to be adopted or not. Are you supporting this institute? Therefore why do you interefer? Secondly the church 'thinks' that it is better for a child to have 2 parents rather than one; so what is wrong with that? Is there need to call the saintly people wolves? Shame.Thirdly it seems that the church is the one to help these orphans . A very good thing is it? Go yourselve and establish an orphanage and use or collect money for their sake; will you? The church is there, as always, to help ( practically no one else) ( By church I mean here GOD whose instruments are the people of good faith. ARE you one?

Mike Hunt

Feb 16th, 17:09

Carmel ... yes I am an active contributor to various social initiatives. Some to do with private enterprise in developing countries, other with human rights in so called 'developed' countries. I do not correlate religious to good (saintly) very tightly. My experience in Malta of religious people was primarily one of dogmatisation and over the top instilment of feelings of guilt, shame, fears of eternal damnation and other psychological abuse from pulpit to school to confessionary.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 17th, 06:44

@ Carmel Serracino-Inglott:

"BUT I think that firstly it is the institute taking care of those children that should decide whether to allow a child to be adopted or not. Are you supporting this institute?".

That is as wrong as it is dangerous. It is the law that decides. Would you say that it is the adoption institution that should decide whether to give a child for adoption to a known paedophile? Let's be reasonable, shall we?

Advert

In Discussion

Advert

Sign in

Use your timesofmalta.com account to login:

Use facebook or google account to login:

Claudia Calleja

Maltese-run orphanage stops adoption for singles

Similar Stories

Feb 18th, 09:12
Sexual orientation should not be a barrier to adoption

All God’s children

Legal but not possible

Children of God?

Adopting children in care may soon be...

The rights of children are supreme

Popular Stories

Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...

Updated: Woman dies in car crash

Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...

Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses

The end of the bar that ‘never closed’

Bundy does not know whether to...

Updated - Jason Micallef demands...

This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...

'No need for early election if PM's...

In Discussion

Updated - Jason Micallef demands...

Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...

CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...

Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...

Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...

Second group of migrants arrives

Updated: Labour would give...

CABS drone shot down

Adrian Vassallo in scathing...

Email article

Sign in

Use your timesofmalta.com account to login:

Use facebook or google account to login:

Claudia Calleja

Maltese-run orphanage stops adoption for singles

Feb 18th, 09:12 Sexual orientation should not be a barrier to adoption

Popular Stories

In Discussion

Email article

Feb 18th, 09:12
Sexual orientation should not be a barrier to adoption