Archdiocese Agency Cannot Discriminate Against Homosexual Adoptions

[fix]

johnnykins:

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.

Yes, homosexual “marriages” are always wrong. Placing children in such conditions is a viloation of the children’s rights.

You are arguing homosexual adoption is licit under certain conditions. If that is true, why does the Vatican document say it is gravely immoral? Is it only immoral when there is a chance a heterosexual couple can adopt? That would make little sense.

 

[johnnykins]

The answer, as I have stated numerous times, is that the Vatican’s document is clearly not a complete discourse on gay adoption - and does not address many issues on adoption. I am willing to believe it is possible the Vatican also believes that children left in institutions (orphanages) is gravely immoral; children placed with only a single individual is gravely immoral; children left in abusive heterosexual family situations is gravely immoral; children shunted from foster family to foster family without a permanent home is gravely immoral; children left on the street to fend for themselves is gravely immoral, etc. Certainly there are other possibilities. None of these issues is addressed by the statement cited. If the church were to be faced with placing a child in a homosexual “family” setting or in one of these other settings - with no other choice - then principles of proportionality enter into the analysis when faced with bad choice A or bad choice B. (As noted earlier, one could even posit that actions to protect children from several of these conditions would be an affirmative good even if heterosexual adoption were not available at all - that issue is not addressed. It might not be ideal, but might nonetheless be an affirmative good when relieving the other condition. My point is that I read the statement in a limited way and you are reading it all inclusively). The church clearly holds that sterilization is morally grave. Yet in cases of health - cancer, e.g, - for proportionate reasons hysterectomies and orchiectomies are allowed. If the church has clearly made a decision on these matters cited above on adoption, I will gladly accept it. I do not believe the statement proferred does that. If you have no additional support for your contention, I see no reason to continue this discussion. I believe you are wrong in the extreme.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

We’ve been getting circular too long.

I agree. You need to provide more data to back up your arguments. Such as evidence that there are no heterosexual married couples willing to adopt in Massachusetts. That would be a starting point for your argument.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

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

No. In this case the parent is temporarily denying his right to be a parent for having committed a crime. The state is not creating the situation.

johnnykins:

• Sending a parent out of town, to war, etc., is always immoral?

How does this stop them from being a parent? It doesn’t. Again, the parent is making the choice.

johnnykins:

-Since there is no mention of the time away from the child - going to work is immoral?

Getting sillier. Still parental choice if I must take up the argument.

johnnykins:

-Court orders limiting parental rights are always immoral?

They often are. It depends.

johnnykins:

-Actions to keep abusive parents away from children are always immoral?

Parent made the decision.

johnnykins:

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

You are reading far too little with no evidence to back up your position. You are willing to accept the placement of a child in a permanently negative situation for their development for the sake of some unknown scenarios.

 

[Brad]

johnnykins:

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.

This argument holds zero weight until you can provide evidence that there are no heterosexual couples waiting to adopt in Massachusetts and also prove that there hasn’t been a recent influx of homosexual couples from many other states into Massachusetts who also want to adopt children.

 

[fix]

Brad:

This argument holds zero weight until you can provide evidence that there are no heterosexual couples waiting to adopt in Massachusetts and also prove that there hasn’t been a recent influx of homosexual couples from many other states into Massachusetts who also want to adopt children.

Not only that, why is an orphanage gravely immoral?

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

The answer, as I have stated numerous times, is that the Vatican’s document is clearly not a complete discourse on gay adoption - and does not address many issues on adoption. I am willing to believe it is possible the Vatican also believes that children left in institutions (orphanages) is gravely immoral; children placed with only a single individual is gravely immoral; children left in abusive heterosexual family situations is gravely immoral; children shunted from foster family to foster family without a permanent home is gravely immoral; children left on the street to fend for themselves is gravely immoral, etc. Certainly there are other possibilities. None of these issues is addressed by the statement cited. If the church were to be faced with placing a child in a homosexual “family” setting or in one of these other settings - with no other choice - then principles of proportionality enter into the analysis when faced with bad choice A or bad choice B. (As noted earlier, one could even posit that actions to protect children from several of these conditions would be an affirmative good even if heterosexual adoption were not available at all - that issue is not addressed. It might not be ideal, but might nonetheless be an affirmative good when relieving the other condition. My point is that I read the statement in a limited way and you are reading it all inclusively). The church clearly holds that sterilization is morally grave. Yet in cases of health - cancer, e.g, - for proportionate reasons hysterectomies and orchiectomies are allowed. If the church has clearly made a decision on these matters cited above on adoption, I will gladly accept it. I do not believe the statement proferred does that. If you have no additional support for your contention, I see no reason to continue this discussion. I believe you are wrong in the extreme.

Direct sterilization is always wrong. Sterilization as an unintended side effect of treating a medical condition is licit. How is that equivalent to intentionally placing a child in a homosexual environment?

Is every single option not available except same sex couples? Would the children be left to die of exposure in the street if the homosexual couple did not adopt?

That is done not as an unintended action, but specfically done to the child.

What other alternatives may be done if the agency decides foster care or orphanages are not acceptable? What types of “unions” that are gravely immoral would also be acceptable using your understanding of the principles of double effect and totality?

Do the ends ever justify the means? Placing children in a gravely immoral situation seems to be never justifiable.

I am open to correction.

 

[AJC]

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.

Strider!

Catholic Charities at the National and Diocesan level has sold out to the secular forces of government. Let’s face it, it is easier for Catholic Charities, nation wide, to shill for the welfare state than it is for the Bishops, priests, and other religious to tell the Catholic in the pew, “Hey, the function of the Church isn’t just to make you feel better, you’ve got to help your fellow man schmuck!”

To think at one time the Roman Catholic Church in America built hospitals, schools, orphanages, and great cathedrals. Now all it does is sell out for government funding. This is one of the great shames of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

AJC

 

[Mike_Dye]

I’ll tell you what I think with no question… I believe the American Bishops need to LEAD THEIR FLOCK!!!.. Please Dear Bishops Just Do It!!! … Please!

 

[geezerbob]

Somebody doesn’t seem to understand that government money sooner or later means government control. That’s why I’m against the voucher system for education.

The solution is simple. Catholics need to dig a little deeper when the plate is passed so that Catholic Charities can go back to being Catholic Charities and not rely on government money and the resultant government control. If Catholics contributed only half as much per capita as Baptists, the Church and all it’s affiliated agencies would be swimming in money and there would be no need for Catholic Charities to prostitute itself.

**My :twocents: **

 

[Brad]

Somebody doesn’t seem to understand that government money sooner or later means government control. That’s why I’m against the voucher system for education.

The solution is simple. Catholics need to dig a little deeper when the plate is passed so that Catholic Charities can go back to being Catholic Charities and not rely on government money and the resultant government control. If Catholics contributed only half as much per capita as Baptists, the Church and all it’s affiliated agencies would be swimming in money and there would be no need for Catholic Charities to prostitute itself.

**My :twocents: **

The reason that the Baptists give more is because their outreach organizations and their teaching are completely aligned.

When Catholic Charities shows Catholics that they are undoubtedly fully Catholic, they will be amazed at what God will bring in through His faithful.

 

[johnnykins]

Interesting quote from the Nov 4 Boston Pilot - the Archdiocesan newspaper - rcab.org:

"All licensed adoption agencies in Massachusetts are obligated to follow a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. Since 1987 Catholic Charities has contracted with the state to place children in state care for adoption and in foster homes.

Father Hehir explained that even if the archdiocese withdrew from the state contracts, the Church agency would still be required to follow the non-discrimination policy to retain it’s adoption license.

“I would solve the money problem tomorrow by going out and raising money. It doesn’t make any difference. If I don’t get licensed I cannot make adoptions,”he said."

Suddenly the issue with respect to Catholic Charities is not so clear.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

Interesting quote from the Nov 4 Boston Pilot - the Archdiocesan newspaper - rcab.org:

"All licensed adoption agencies in Massachusetts are obligated to follow a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. Since 1987 Catholic Charities has contracted with the state to place children in state care for adoption and in foster homes.

Father Hehir explained that even if the archdiocese withdrew from the state contracts, the Church agency would still be required to follow the non-discrimination policy to retain it’s adoption license.

“I would solve the money problem tomorrow by going out and raising money. It doesn’t make any difference. If I don’t get licensed I cannot make adoptions,”he said."

Suddenly the issue with respect to Catholic Charities is not so clear.

If the law said Catholic hospitals must provide contraceptives and abortion services, should they comply? These issues come up all the time.

 

[johnnykins]

fix:

If the law said Catholic hospitals must provide contraceptives and abortion services, should they comply? These issues come up all the time.

Really? Which states?

 

[volzcpa]

johnnykins:

Suddenly the issue with respect to Catholic Charities is not so clear.

I think it is still very clear. The end does not justify the means. You cannot justify doing an evil because some good may come from it. We do not have to obey civil laws that are intrinsically evil/immoral – we are to resist them and fight to get them changed. Catholic Charities should do what is right, period.

 

[fix]

johnnykins:

Really? Which states?

I think there is usually a conscience clause that the hospitals use to avoid things like direct sterilization procedures when hospitals merge. I remeber in NYS there was a push for a “morning after pill” for rape victims without regard to whether conception had occured.

I am not denying there are issues to be worked out, that does not mean the agency should abide by an unjust law.

 

[johnnykins]

volzcpa:

I think it is still very clear. The end does not justify the means. You cannot justify doing an evil because some good may come from it. We do not have to obey civil laws that are intrinsically evil/immoral – we are to resist them and fight to get them changed. Catholic Charities should do what is right, period.

If you read the prior posts you will see that the issue has been somewhat explored.

 

[johnnykins]

fix:

I think there is usually a conscience clause that the hospitals use to avoid things like direct sterilization procedures when hospitals merge. I remeber in NYS there was a push for a “morning after pill” for rape victims without regard to whether conception had occured.

I am not denying there are issues to be worked out, that does not mean the agency should abide by an unjust law.

Don’t quite see how this purports to answer the questions - questions raised in direct response to your assertion.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

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

I’d rather the Church be true to our faith in all ways than have the service or the funding. I’d rather see the service closed than see it compromise the faith.

---

When someone choses a Catholic charity, they should feel confident beyond a doubt all it’s acts will reflect the Catholic faith.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

fix:

If the law said Catholic hospitals must provide contraceptives and abortion services, should they comply? These issues come up all the time.

Actually, this is true. California branches of Catholic Charities was sued for not complying with a Cal. law that requires all companies that offer prescription drug coverage to employees to cover birth control. CC said they didn’t have to abide by that law because of religious exemptions. A CA court said CC did not meet the requirement for the exemptions because they:

---

1. serve anyone, regardless of faith

---

2. have non-catholic employees

---

3. do not make evangelizing a requirement of their services (in other words they don’t force information about the Church onto those who apply for help)

---

This case is currently being appealed in CA.

---

**What bothers me, aside from the actual suit, is that if every charity had to meet those requirement - almost none would qualify! You’d think every church in america would be in an uproar, but no it’s okay as long it’s only the Catholic being persecuted. **

---

I’m sorry I don’t have the direct links yet, but I’m in a hurry.