Archdiocese Agency Cannot Discriminate Against Homosexual Adoptions

[Brad]

allheadlinenews.com/articles/7000776760

This is so sad. What is your opinion?

If the state will shut them down if they refuse to adopt to homosexual couples, then they should get out of the adoption business altogether and spend that extra energy preaching the Gospel of repentance.

 

[Brad]

**If they do this will they not loose any state /federal funding that they recieve? **

I believe that all Catholic churches and agencies in the United States should no longer take in federal funding unless they allow strict adherance to Catholic teaching within those churches and agencies. Otherwise, they are just another federal operation pretending to be Catholic. This is scandal to the faithful.

 

[Brad]

Karin:

Well the Catholic Charities (ccab.org/))
associated with this article get some funding (http://www.ccab.org/catholic_charities_2004_financial_statements.pdf) from United Way(support Planned Parenthood etc.) what does that say or imply???

Which is why I no longer support United Way or Catholic Charities. I’m not compromising my soul and potentially others for a potential good. There are other institutions that do all good with the money that I can give to.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Brad:

Which is why I no longer support United Way or Catholic Charities. I’m not compromising my soul and potentially others for a potential good. There are other institutions that do all good with the money that I can give to.

Agreed. I have not supported the United Way in years. I rather give directly to charities that I can support.

PF

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

This article is yet another example of the coming battle of the Church v anti-church just like John Paul II said. I think what the priest said there in the article was just cowardice, what ever happened to carrying your cross and follow Jesus.

It is an unfaithful generation.

 

[Crow]

**If they do this will they not loose any state /federal funding that they recieve? **

Morality is not for sale.

---

As for the rest of the comments, I recall the prayer:

“Look not at the sins of your people, but to the faith of your church.”

(my own rough translation from French: “Ne regarde pas nos pechers, mais la foi de ton Eglise.”)

Somehow, I think God understands, though He doesn’t like the situation anymore than we do.

I agree a stand must be made, but is it really the orphenage that should make this stand? Make a stand, yes - but not to the detriment of the weak and the small, aka, the children waiting for an adoption. If a stand needs to be taken, it must be taken by a party independant of the orphenage so that the orphenage does not suffer penalties and halt their good work.

In light of this argument, who is truly guilty? Is it the priest in question, or those who lack in suporting him and coming to his defense - his hands being tied?

 

[johnnykins]

volzcpa:

I believe that you need to rethink your second point as the Church does condemn providing children to homosexual adoptive parents.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS States:

“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.”

Actually I agree with this statement. I do believe you are reading more into it than is there, however. Then Cardinal Ratzinger was writing about homosexual marriage - not adoption, per se, and its issues unrelated to homosexual marriage. The quote is precisely why I refer to placement of a child in such a “family” as evil. It is also why I am unwilling to take a firm stand. The issue in this thread of the culpability of Catholic Charities under the circumstances at play in Boston simply were not addressed by the Congregation - at least in this statement you quote. For example, the statement does not address the issue of a child having no placement at all - remaining in an orphanage (as happens in many countries) or foster care v. placement in a homosexual “family” situation. To my knowledge the Church has not addressed that issue. I would love to be shown that it has. So I remain unwilling to condemn Catholic Charities in the situation at issue - though I am willing to consider that it might be appropriate to do so. I guess I’ve found over time that issues like this are not generally susceptible to easy answers.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

Actually I agree with this statement. I do believe you are reading more into it than is there, however. Then Cardinal Ratzinger was writing about homosexual marriage - not adoption, per se, and its issues unrelated to homosexual marriage. The quote is precisely why I refer to placement of a child in such a “family” as evil. It is also why I am unwilling to take a firm stand. The issue in this thread of the culpability of Catholic Charities under the circumstances at play in Boston simply were not addressed by the Congregation - at least in this statement you quote. For example, the statement does not address the issue of a child having no placement at all - remaining in an orphanage (as happens in many countries) or foster care v. placement in a homosexual “family” situation. To my knowledge the Church has not addressed that issue. I would love to be shown that it has. So I remain unwilling to condemn Catholic Charities in the situation at issue - though I am willing to consider that it might be appropriate to do so. I guess I’ve found over time that issues like this are not generally susceptible to easy answers.

I am not being flip, but how would it be less morally violent to place children in this setting if there were no heterosexual couples to adopt? Does the moral violence only happen when there is a “choice”?

Additionally, I think it is a false argument to claim there is a choice between no adoption or same sex adoption.

 

[johnnykins]

If you look again at Cardinal Ratzinger’s language - the violence is due to the denial of either a father or mother. Presumably one could argue that denial of BOTH a father and mother is worse than denial of either. Conversely, it could be stated that the provision of a father OR a mother is preferable to neither - a good thing. (I won’t get into the potential concerns/benefits of 2 fathers or 2 mothers.) That leads us down the road of proportionality.

My point is Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation did not address these issues at all. I do not know how the Church would view such circumstances - and that is presumably the circumstance faced by Catholic Charities. I caution against reading too much into the Congregation’s statement - as its silence on many issues could be used in unwarranted ways.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

For example, the statement does not address the issue of a child having no placement at all - remaining in an orphanage (as happens in many countries) or foster care v. placement in a homosexual “family” situation. To my knowledge the Church has not addressed that issue.

Sure She has (and does frequently):

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000905_adozioni_en.html

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

If you look again at Cardinal Ratzinger’s language - the violence is due to the denial of either a father or mother. Presumably one could argue that denial of BOTH a father and mother is worse than denial of either.

The homosexual adoption is a purposeful and lifelong denial of one or the other. To work actively for a heterosexual married couple to adopt the same child as an alternative is to work in the child’s best interests. There are many heterosexual married couples looking to adopt. Giving homosexual couples equal or preferential opportunities to adopt is wrong.

johnnykins:

My point is Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation did not address these issues at all. I do not know how the Church would view such circumstances - and that is presumably the circumstance faced by Catholic Charities. I caution against reading too much into the Congregation’s statement - as its silence on many issues could be used in unwarranted ways.

They do not have to address every possible issue to make a moral decision on one circumstance. They clearly and convincingly made that moral decision regarding adoption by homosexual couples. It is unequivocably wrong, irregardless of extenuating or surrounding circumstances or all other possible scenarios.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

If you look again at Cardinal Ratzinger’s language - the violence is due to the denial of either a father or mother. Presumably one could argue that denial of BOTH a father and mother is worse than denial of either. Conversely, it could be stated that the provision of a father OR a mother is preferable to neither - a good thing. (I won’t get into the potential concerns/benefits of 2 fathers or 2 mothers.) That leads us down the road of proportionality.

One could argue it, but that would not be a reasonable argument. The child would still be deprived of a authentic father and mother and be confused by two people playing the same role, among other problems.

My point is Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation did not address these issues at all. I do not know how the Church would view such circumstances - and that is presumably the circumstance faced by Catholic Charities. I caution against reading too much into the Congregation’s statement - as its silence on many issues could be used in unwarranted ways.

Can’t see your point? The Vatican document says same sex adoption is wrong and the circumstances in this thread do not make it right.

 

[johnnykins]

I disagree.

I do note that Pope Benedict as a theologian is an extremely precise person. Based on how he writes, I doubt he would agree with you - but I’m not he, and I doubt he’ll join us in this thread to clarify the matter.

Pax

 

[fix]

Brad:

They do not have to address every possible issue to make a moral decision on one circumstance. They clearly and convincingly made that moral decision regarding adoption by homosexual couples. It is unequivocably wrong, irregardless of extenuating or surrounding circumstances or all other possible scenarios.

Exactly. There are no loopholes.

From the Vatican doc:

Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children…

discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon…

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application…

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour…

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 …

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

I disagree.

I do note that Pope Benedict as a theologian is an extremely precise person. Based on how he writes, I doubt he would agree with you - but I’m not he, and I doubt he’ll join us in this thread to clarify the matter.

Pax

Sorry to re-quote but it is necessary to point ou that precision has been provided:

"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.”

This is in regards to legal recognition of homosexual unions, a prerequisite to any adoption. The 2 must be recognized as connected legally in order to become guardians and caretakers of the children.

 

[johnnykins]

Oddly, the statement does not say that.

Also, as a general rule in analyzing any particular ethical issue, the circumstance must be known to make a judgment. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Church has decided that in each and every instance there is no possible circumstance to allow for adoption by homosexuals. Certainly the Congregation’s statement referenced above does not by any stretch. Thus we are back to the general rule of knowing the circumstances; we have issues of proportionality; and accordingly, the issue may be open to dispute. If the Church has definitively addressed the matter - let me know.

Please note I am not addressing “situational ethics” at all. That is a completely different matter and not referenced by me in the above-paragraph at all. It is also condemned by the Church - and I agree with that.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

Oddly, the statement does not say that.

Also, as a general rule in analyzing any particular ethical issue, the circumstance must be known to make a judgment. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Church has decided that in each and every instance there is no possible circumstance to allow for adoption by homosexuals. Certainly the Congregation’s statement referenced above does not by any stretch. Thus we are back to the general rule of knowing the circumstances; we have issues of proportionality; and accordingly, the issue may be open to dispute. If the Church has definitively addressed the matter - let me know.

Please note I am not addressing “situational ethics” at all. That is a completely different matter and not referenced by me in the above-paragraph at all. It is also condemned by the Church - and I agree with that.

Surely you cannot deny that the document is indicating that 2 homosexuals living in a legal union that adopt a child will be committing a gravely immoral act. That is the essence of the document.

Are you then extending that perhaps homosexuals NOT in a valid legal union should be able to adopt? That would be a preferred situation by the Church? Somewhat preposterous, don’t you think?

 

[johnnykins]

Brad:

Sure She has (and does frequently):

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000905_adozioni_en.html

A wonderful letter that is inapt to the discussion at hand.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

Oddly, the statement does not say that.

Also, as a general rule in analyzing any particular ethical issue, the circumstance must be known to make a judgment. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Church has decided that in each and every instance there is no possible circumstance to allow for adoption by homosexuals. Certainly the Congregation’s statement referenced above does not by any stretch. Thus we are back to the general rule of knowing the circumstances; we have issues of proportionality; and accordingly, the issue may be open to dispute. If the Church has definitively addressed the matter - let me know.

Please note I am not addressing “situational ethics” at all. That is a completely different matter and not referenced by me in the above-paragraph at all. It is also condemned by the Church - and I agree with that.

I want to understand your position. The Vatican document says it is gravely immoral for homosexual couples to adopt. You claim that if a child is up for adoption, and no heterosexual couple is willing to adopt, then the homosexual couple may adopt using principles of moral theology?

 

[johnnykins]

Brad:

Surely you cannot deny that the document is indicating that 2 homosexuals living in a legal union that adopt a child will be committing a gravely immoral act. That is the essence of the document.

Are you then extending that perhaps homosexuals NOT in a valid legal union should be able to adopt? That would be a preferred situation by the Church? Somewhat preposterous, don’t you think?

Sorry - my response was to Fix’s post immediately before mine that ended “Pax” I should have been more clear.

You know I have repeatedly addressed the placement of children as evil - and agreed with Cardinal Ratzinger. I repeat, however, that neither the Congregation nor Cardinal Ratzinger were addressing the issue at hand here. It’s that simple. As to your second issue - I don’t know - yes it is possible when other matters are considered, as I have said. I don’t believe that the Church has addressed the issue. I have also said i may be wrong - I just am not ready to condem Cathoic Charities over this at this time.