However as I noted in a blog post a few years ago:

“There are some organisations (http://www.prospects.org.uk/ for example) that are heavily reliant on government income yet only employ practicing Christians in their frontline services (tho’ as someone told me from Prospects, until the recession it was hard to find staff that fulfilled this criterion). The Law is quite happy for them to do this, which demonstrates that there isn’t the ‘discrimination’ against Christians that some of our ‘victim mentality’ brethren imagine (it is certain few of those most vocal about ‘discrimination’ of faith-based charities have never worked for one – hence the temptation for imagination to supplant awkward facts…).

There are others (e.g. the Jesus Army’s Jesus Centres, see http://www.jesuscentre.org.uk/london/) that have purposefully rejected government money and chosen to do that rare thing, enact Christian charity through their own community, asking for nothing from the State, staffing their centres with members of their own church/community and funding the work from their own pocket. In my view it is such projects that really fulfil the prophetic nature of Christian charity. Many of the faith-based organisations that are heavily reliant on the tax-payer and a paid, often with a bias towards a non-believing staff team (too few Christians like to work for low paid, in low status jobs!) exist as ‘charity by proxy’ for many faith communities. It is interesting to look at Leeds Catholic Care’s employment requirements: http://www.catholic-care.org.uk/jobs/:

“[Catholic Care] recognise and are committed to equal opportunities in our employment practices. Society policy is to make no distinction to potential or existing employees on the grounds of race, colour, and ethnic, nor on the grounds of religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability or physical appearance. We base selection and promotion decisions solely on the ability to meet the essential requirements of the post.”

I hear some say ‘Ah but it is the government that makes the organisation have this equal opportunities’ policy’. Yet Prospect’s Care (itself heavily reliant on government income) states:

“Under Employer Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Section 7), these posts have a Genuine Occupational Requirement to be a Christian. The successful applicant will be committed to the Mission ethos, aims and objectives of Prospects and will be able to demonstrate clear evidence of Christian commitment.” (see http://www.prospects.org.uk/index.php/getinvolved/5/6)

So it is obvious that the accusation of ‘victimisation’ of a faith-based organisation isn’t really true, is it? It is probable Catholic Care, like many faith based organisations, just wouldn’t be able to employ enough Catholics/Christians wanting to work for the organisation who possessed the appropriate skills and were happy to work for peanuts (tho’ of course the senior management usually have salaries comparable with senior local government managers (£40-£80Kpa)). Have a see for yourself – go onto the website of a faith based organisation, look up vacancies and again and again you’ll see many faith based organisations choose not to follow Prospects’ example of adopting ‘Employer Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Section 7’ and instead go for adopting secular ‘equal opportunities’. Of course trustees, senior management and those all important ‘vice presidents’ you want named on your headed note paper, are often members of the faith community the charity is aligned with, but the hands on work can be carried out by anyone. Is it any wonder – how many Christians (or Jews, Muslims etc.) want to work for £6.50 an hour for wiping someone’s bottom or cleaning up a drunk’s vomit or facing and suffering abuse and even violence in the course of their work (yet this is a service the charity usually charges the state the full market rate – £350-750+ a week for those using their services!)?

So please, please can we stop this nonsense about ‘Christians being the poor victims’ of the wicked secular state. The state funds faith-based charities to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds a year (we’re into the billions, when it comes to faith schools). But is this really ‘faith in action’ – given the paucity of front line workers who are actually members of the faith – not to mention the fact the market rate is charged for the service; hence it isn’t really ‘charity’ in the sacramental or prophetic sense of the word associated with Christian philanthropic theology. Sure, many of these organisations do good work, but is it faith in action or charity by proxy?”

As for gay marriage – (not something I’m particularly keen on myself!) again and again, the government has said that no faith community will be forced to carry out SSM – but Catholic Voices or Anglicanmainstream at one time made almost ALL posts about this topic. Personally I think the real issue why these issues get blown out of proportion, with a good deal of misinformation (and occasionally downright lies) is because it is easier to blame others for the failure of many Christians to do what they are supposed to do. It is someone else’s fault… When in reality, it is often the case that if Christian charities had to stand on their own two feet, instead of receiving massive subsidy from the state, they would be nothing. If they had to rely on Christians rolling up their sleeves, wiping bottoms, cleaning up vomit, dealing with the dysfunctional and abusive, there would be very few willing to do it. Better to get other people to do it and the state to pay for it, but blame liberalism when the costs of such a relationship becomes apparent! At the moment, with many of our reactionary Christian friends, it is always someone else’s fault. If St Paul or St Peter or the early had Church had had the same mentality, then it is likely Christianity would have never survived. You don’t read of St Paul stamping his foot, like a petulant child and saying ‘It’s not fair…’ There’s a lot some of our reactionary chums could learn from St Paul and the early Church!

The argument goes: As Catholic Adoption Agencies were forced, so will the Church.

Can we please remember that adoption is NOT this charity’s main work – indeed no more than a handful of adoptions take place a year.

There is no reason why Catholics who feel strongly about this, couldn’t set up a private ‘not for profit’ company. The problem is that there just wouldn’t be enough money coming in. In short what the RC Church is asking is that the state should fund its moral stance, when there it is unable to do so itself… Which let’s face it, is a bit of a cheek!

I’m fed up of listening to the whinging of people on this topic. THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING CATHOLIC ADOPTIONS – just don’t expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab!