Archdiocese Agency Cannot Discriminate Against Homosexual Adoptions

[johnnykins]

fix:

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?

I am saying that as set forth by the Congregation and given the arguments posited there that the issue is open when other matters are at play. For example, killing someone is gravely immoral - unless of course in a war under orders, etc., self-defense, other issues. The Congregation has not addressed what happens when a child is not adopted at all - or is adopted by a single person. I agree completely with the Congregation that within the context of the statement such adoptions are immoral - I have called them evil. I simply have not seen the circumstances face in Boston by the Catholic Charities addressed - and I believe to make a clear moral decision on this matter, you need to do so. I do not believe that the Congregation has made the all encompassing statement you seem to think they have.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

I am saying that as set forth by the Congregation and given the arguments posited there that the issue is open when other matters are at play. For example, killing someone is gravely immoral - unless of course in a war under orders, etc., self-defense, other issues. The Congregation has not addressed what happens when a child is not adopted at all - or is adopted by a single person. I agree completely with the Congregation that within the context of the statement such adoptions are immoral - I have called them evil. I simply have not seen the circumstances face in Boston by the Catholic Charities addressed - and I believe to make a clear moral decision on this matter, you need to do so. I do not believe that the Congregation has made the all encompassing statement you seem to think they have.

If I correctly read the article in the OP the issue in question is whether Catholic Charities may continue to place children with same sex couples, or lose government funding?

If my understanding is correct, then the placement of children with such couples is immoral. I am not a moral theologian, but it does not seem so difficult to accept that same sex couple ought not to raise children.

How Catholic Charities resolves the conflict is certainly debatable, but the placement is wrong.

 

[johnnykins]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought the issue was a state law preventing a state licensed agency from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. I’ve looked back at all the posts and see none that has a third party reference tying the matter to funding. Several posts seem to gratuitously raise the issue - so maybe I just missed the post. If so, a sincere mea culpa. Clearly if the obligation is tied to funding - drop the funding.

However, if the matter is tied to actually providing the services, my position remains unchanged - torn and unwilling to condemn.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

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.

They HAVE addressed the issue at hand here. The issue is whether it is moral for homosexual couples to adopt. You are splitting hairs with the document that clearly indicates this is not moral.

It is like saying that someone was murdered in your local town and everyone knew who the murderer was but because Pope Benedict XVI did not declare this specific murder to be wrong, we are unsure whether it is.

 

[Nonie]

From the above stated article…"Reverand J. Bryan Hehir, the agency’s president says, “If we could design the system ourselves, we would not particiapte in adoptions to gay couples but we can’t. We have to balance various goods.”

“Various goods?” What does that mean? hummm…a childs welfare…or a big hunk of govt. moo-la…hummm… :nope:

Perhaps this Reverand is ok with gay people adopting. Maybe this is the real issue here. Or perhaps they need to replace him with someone who has a backbone.

 

[Brad]

fix:

How Catholic Charities resolves the conflict is certainly debatable, but the placement is wrong.

Johnnykins -

I’d like to see your response to the above. I agree with Fix. The placement is wrong, period. Now, Catholic Charities can go to work on alternate solutions that do not include such placement. The problem is not resolved by NOT placing a foster child with a homosexual couple. The problem must continue to be dealt with. What the Church is saying, though, is that one perceived solution is actually artificial and exasperates the problem. In this way, the Church points us to real solutions.

Secondarily, it is proponents of the homosexual agenda that want most to think that there are no heterosexual married couples willing to adopt these children. They want most to believe that there are no real solutions so we must settle for an artificial one. This is not true and so we should not settle.

I see a similar parallel in the voices of those that clamor for the “priestless parish” as an artificial solution to the priest shortage rather than put a real plan into action to foster new vocations.

If a bone in our arm has cancer, it is of little benefit to shoot your arm with pain killer and put a band-aid on it.

 

[johnnykins]

Muder is murder - you are edging toward situational ethics, which is another matter altogether. You are saying I’m saying that murder in Boston is moral while murder is NY is not. I’ve never said or implied in any of these posts anything of the sort. You are mixing the proverbial apples and oranges. I am saying that no one has said this is murder. No one has looked at the circumstance yet. And because Benedict made a statement on rape that included a limited side bar on murder means that he has not expressed a general opinion on murder.

Since we disagree on the meaning and breadth of the statement by the Congregation - I don’t see where we progress without further documentation of the Church’s position. We disagree. We each believe we are right. And we each believe we have Benedict on our side. Jansenists to the right - Modernists (in the Pius IX sense) to the left, I guess.

I never knew I was on the liberal side of things. First time for everything, I guess.

 

[johnnykins]

Brad,
My point all along has been that it MAY be wrong, but it may NOT for the reasons set forth several times above. I do not presume to know. Accordingly I am unwilling to issue one of these scathing indictments of Catholic Charities, and its priests, as are set forth above. If it’s wrong then Catholic Charities should get out of adoptions. If it’s not wrong in the particular circumstances then Catholic Charities is allowed to continue doing adoptions - if it deems it prudent to do so. In either case Catholics need to work to change the law. The problem is the law/regulations. That needs to be addressed no matter what.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

Muder is murder - you are edging toward situational ethics, which is another matter altogether. You are saying I’m saying that murder in Boston is moral while murder is NY is not. I’ve never said or implied in any of these posts anything of the sort. You are mixing the proverbial apples and oranges. I am saying that no one has said this is murder. No one has looked at the circumstance yet. And because Benedict made a statement on rape that included a limited side bar on murder means that he has not expressed a general opinion on murder.

Murder is murder. Homosexual adoption is homosexual adoption. It wasn’t a sidebar. It was a key ingredient of the teaching.

johnnykins:

Since we disagree on the meaning and breadth of the statement by the Congregation - I don’t see where we progress without further documentation of the Church’s position. We disagree. We each believe we are right. And we each believe we have Benedict on our side. Jansenists to the right - Modernists (in the Pius IX sense) to the left, I guess.

I never knew I was on the liberal side of things. First time for everything, I guess.

I never called you liberal but I still suggest you are looking for hairs to split.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

Brad,
My point all along has been that it MAY be wrong, but it may NOT for the reasons set forth several times above. I do not presume to know. Accordingly I am unwilling to issue one of these scathing indictments of Catholic Charities, and its priests, as are set forth above. If it’s wrong then Catholic Charities should get out of adoptions. If it’s not wrong in the particular circumstances then Catholic Charities is allowed to continue doing adoptions - if it deems it prudent to do so. In either case Catholics need to work to change the law. The problem is the law/regulations. That needs to be addressed no matter what.

There is nothing unclear about this:

“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”

Purposefully depriving a mother or father does violence and is immoral in all circumstances. If there were exceptional circustances in which it were acceptable, they would be specified.

 

[johnnykins]

Brad:

There is nothing unclear about this:

“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”

Purposefully depriving a mother or father does violence and is immoral in all circumstances. If there were exceptional circustances in which it were acceptable, they would be specified.

1. This is from a document on homosexual marriage - not adoption and its separate issues.
2. This is the only paragraph to address the issue of adoption - it’s a side-bar.
3. Within the context it clearly is in contraposition to adoption by heterosexual couples - it does not pretend to address single person adoptions (or other single person situations - though read like you want it read it tosses them into the morally grave and violence to children category!!! All those widowed parents out there better get ready for hell-fire if your reading is correct). It further does not address the unadopted!! What sort of moral position does the Church have for all of us who leave any child unadopted. Guess by your reading we all better prepare for damnation.

Your reading and argument is so wrong it screams as a calumny on Benedict and the Church. The statement you quote simply does not address the issues Catholic Charities is facing because if it does it condemns clearly innocent widowed parents and anyone who leaves a child unadopted into a heterosexual union. Your arguments don’t work - unless you have something else to support them.

 

[Brad]

1. This is from a document on homosexual marriage - not adoption and its separate issues.

The document is regarding legal recognition of homosexual unions, not just marriage - which includes the various legal benefits that could be applied to such unions. One key benefit is adoption.

johnnykins:

1. This is the only paragraph to address the issue of adoption - it’s a side-bar.

It is not a side-bar. It is a key portion of the document that indicates a key problem of such legal recognition - homosexual adoption. The problem is stated as support for the position against legal recognition. If the problem did not exist, the argument against legal recognition would not exist. It is a given, based on the document, that homosexual adoption is a problem that is gravely immoral.

johnnykins:

1. Within the context it clearly is in contraposition to adoption by heterosexual couples - it does not pretend to address single person adoptions (or other single person situations - though read like you want it read it tosses them into the morally grave and violence to children category!!! All those widowed parents out there better get ready for hell-fire if your reading is correct).

Irrelevant to the issue facing Catholic Charities. The issue is regarding adoption by couples in a legal homosexual union.

By the way, purposeful violence would be killing someone’s mother or father, depriving the child of one or the other. Natural events may cause the mother or father to pass away, in which case no violence is done and therefore no grave moral evil has occurred.

johnnykins:

It further does not address the unadopted!! What sort of moral position does the Church have for all of us who leave any child unadopted. Guess by your reading we all better prepare for damnation.

This doesn’t add up at all. You are adding to the document. I am not. I’m reading it’s plain english.

johnnykins:

Your reading and argument is so wrong it screams as a calumny on Benedict and the Church. The statement you quote simply does not address the issues Catholic Charities is facing because if it does it condemns clearly innocent widowed parents and anyone who leaves a child unadopted into a heterosexual union. Your arguments don’t work - unless you have something else to support them.

Nonsense. Nobody is saying the document condemns widowed parents or those that do not adopt except you.

 

[Brad]

They admit that such adoptions are wrong:

"Reverand J. Bryan Hehir, the agency’s president says, “If we could design the system ourselves, we would not particiapte in adoptions to gay couples” "

They are just saying that they have no choice but to do it anyway in order to stay in the business of finding homes for children. They are balancing the bad of adopting to homosexual couples with the good of adopting to heterosexual couples. They are not saying tha the homosexual adoptions are sometimes good.

 

[johnnykins]

Here is the entire quote - without your appended gloss - for others to see:
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.vatican.va/roman_curia/c…-unions_en.html

Clearly this in no way adresses the issues I’ve raised several times above. Yes Catholic Charities is balancing the good with the evil - that’s what proportionality is all about. Your arguments claim the above is a clear and universal statement on the morality of such and no such balancing is proper. I have claimed that may not be so - the statement above appears to be limited by its very context and is not meant to address the issues faced by Catholic Charities - to close up its adoption operation or continue due to Massachusetts law.

We’ve been getting circular too long.

 

[johnnykins]

Brad**:

Purposefully

depriving a mother or father does violence and is immoral in all circumstances. If there were exceptional circustances in which it were acceptable, they would be specified.

OK - so sending a parent to jail is always immoral?

• Sending a parent out of town, to war, etc., is always immoral?
  -Since there is no mention of the time away from the child - going to work is immoral?
  -Court orders limiting parental rights are always immoral?
  -Actions to keep abusive parents away from children are always immoral?

You really are reading way too much into the what Benedict is saying.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

Clearly this in no way adresses the issues I’ve raised several times above. Yes Catholic Charities is balancing the good with the evil - that’s what proportionality is all about. Your arguments claim the above is a clear and universal statement on the morality of such and no such balancing is proper. I have claimed that may not be so - the statement above appears to be limited by its very context and is not meant to address the issues faced by Catholic Charities - to close up its adoption operation or continue due to Massachusetts law.

We’ve been getting circular too long.

So, it is licit to do violence to innocent children sometimes?

Why is it moral to sometimes place children in a gravely immoral environment based on the notion some agency does not want to lose government cash, or because someone claims there are no non same sex couples to adopt?

Can we send orphans to be with polygamists?, what about a “marriage” with 4 or 5 folks? May an agency place these kids in any so called family as long as said family is self defined? Circular is not the issue, absurdity is the issue.

 

[johnnykins]

I agree - see my post above.

 

[Strider]

The OP does not have the whole article; the Register, Nov 13 - 19 does.
When I read it, I said to my weife, “Boston Catholic Charities has sold its soul to the Devil.”
The reason Father Hehir talksabout “material cooperation,” is that they would endanger "50 community services and the $18 million plus funding they get from various levels of government.
The priest thinks the “best way out” is for the MA legislture to enact a “conscience clause” for Catholic Chaities.
So there is the moral choice: endanger the programs because you’ve prostituted yourself for state money, and so “do violence” to 5 children over ten years, or stand by Catholic moral teaching, sever fnancial contacts with government and appeal to the good Catholics of Massachussetts.
I know where I stand, and IMO, “moral cooperation,” are weasel words.

 

[johnnykins]

fix:

So, it is licit to do violence to innocent children sometimes?

Why is it moral to sometimes place children in a gravely immoral environment based on the notion some agency does not want to lose government cash, or because someone claims there are no non same sex couples to adopt? [DID WE EVER DETERMINE THIS WAS WHAT WAS GOING ON?]

Can we send orphans to be with polygamists?, what about a “marriage” with 4 or 5 folks? May an agency place these kids in any so called family as long as said family is self defined? Circular is not the issue, absurdity is the issue.

I suppose you’re saying - just leave the little bastards in an orphanage no matter what - that’s always and everywhere the better choice - any other choice is immoral when you are forced to include adoption by a homosexual couple as a limited alternative. Who knows, it may be. You’ve been reading my posts - you know what I have argued is very limited and very qualified.

Sleep well in your certainty.

 

[johnnykins]

Strider:

The OP does not have the whole article; the Register, Nov 13 - 19 does.
When I read it, I said to my weife, “Boston Catholic Charities has sold its soul to the Devil.”
The reason Father Hehir talksabout “material cooperation,” is that they would endanger "50 community services and the $18 million plus funding they get from various levels of government.
The priest thinks the “best way out” is for the MA legislture to enact a “conscience clause” for Catholic Chaities.
So there is the moral choice: endanger the programs because you’ve prostituted yourself for state money, and so “do violence” to 5 children over ten years, or stand by Catholic moral teaching, sever fnancial contacts with government and appeal to the good Catholics of Massachussetts.
I know where I stand, and IMO, “moral cooperation,” are weasel words.

Thank you Strider - that is the piece that does indeed make clear that the Catholic Charities has lost its moral compass - information that until now was unavailable on this post. The answer is indeed to drop the funding and for Catholics to pony up.