Archdiocese Agency Cannot Discriminate Against Homosexual Adoptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
johnnykins:
Don’t quite see how this purports to answer the questions - questions raised in direct response to your assertion.
Click to expand...
As another poster points out there are lawsuits and bills being passed that would attempt to make the Church comply with things that are unjust. That does not mean a Catholic institution gives in and does what is evil.
 
40.png
fix:
If the law said Catholic hospitals must provide contraceptives and abortion services, should they comply? These issues come up all the time.
Click to expand...
I’m simply asking what states have passed laws that say Catholic hospitals must provide contraceptives and abortion services. It should be an easy matter for you to name one since “These issues come up all the time.”

If you don’t have any - perhaps you should retract your over-broad assertion.
 
40.png
johnnykins:
I’m simply asking what states have passed laws that say Catholic hospitals must provide contraceptives and abortion services. It should be an easy matter for you to name one since “These issues come up all the time.”

If you don’t have any - perhaps you should retract your over-broad assertion.
Click to expand...
See post 100 as to CA, and I remember within the past 2-3 years a bill in NYS that involves emergency “contraception”. I can search if you are adamant? Why is it so hard to believe that secular forces want to impose unjust laws on Catholic institutions? These are hardly uncommon things.

Church teachings, the natural law and secular voices are at odds often.

In the end, what is your point? Should Catholic Charities place innocent kids with homosexual couples because the state says so?
 
40.png
fix:
See post 100 as to CA, and I remember within the past 2-3 years a bill in NYS that involves emergency “contraception”. I can search if you are adamant? Why is it so hard to believe that secular forces want to impose unjust laws on Catholic institutions? These are hardly uncommon things.

Church teachings, the natural law and secular voices are at odds often.

In the end, what is your point? Should Catholic Charities place innocent kids with homosexual couples because the state says so?
Click to expand...
Your post was quite unequivocal. The California post is, at best, unclear - 1. - not a hospital and 2. the court declared it not a Catholic institution. Plus it appears from the post to be under appeal - no information on how it’s being handled to date.

The NYS bill - what’s happend to it? Was it passed? Did it exclude Catholic Hospitals? Did it declare “Catholic” hospitals to be secular? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your absolute assertion. Two measly maybe examples.

I always thought the Catholic Church’s teaching were consistent with natural law. Did something change?

Finally, my arguments are set forth through out this thread. I’ve made my point several times. I know we disagree.
 
40.png
johnnykins:
Your post was quite unequivocal. The California post is, at best, unclear - 1. - not a hospital and 2. the court declared it not a Catholic institution. Plus it appears from the post to be under appeal - no information on how it’s being handled to date.

The NYS bill - what’s happend to it? Was it passed? Did it exclude Catholic Hospitals? Did it declare “Catholic” hospitals to be secular? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your absolute assertion. Two measly maybe examples.

I always thought the Catholic Church’s teaching were consistent with natural law. Did something change?

Finally, my arguments are set forth through out this thread. I’ve made my point several times. I know we disagree.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we are talking past each other? This thread is about a Catholic agency that says it is forced to engage in practices that violate the natural law as well as Church teaching. Of course, the natural moral law and Church teaching coincide.

I pointed out this happens in our culture, do you deny this? I mentioned hospitals as one example, but other institutions would serve as comparable examples.

So, my question is are you arguing that an agency that holds itself out as Catholic must obey a law that is unjust to keep funding or to keep its license?

Here is another take:
C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Action League, said the state government was far more at fault than Catholic Charities, and agreed with Father Hehir that the chances of an exemption were slim.
Click to expand...
“Nonetheless, Catholic Charities ought to stand their ground,” he said. “It ought to withdraw from participation in such programs rather than compromise. The Church can’t claim to promote the truth if it doesn’t vindicate its faith with its own actions.”catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?channel_id=1&article_id=3545
Click to expand...
 
40.png
fix:
Perhaps we are talking past each other? This thread is about a Catholic agency that says it is forced to engage in practices that violate the natural law as well as Church teaching. Of course, the natural moral law and Church teaching coincide.

I pointed out this happens in our culture, do you deny this? I mentioned hospitals as one example, but other institutions would serve as comparable examples.

So, my question is are you arguing that an agency that holds itself out as Catholic must obey a law that is unjust to keep funding or to keep its license?

Here is another take:
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is, potentially absent a whole lot of facts and circumstance, that it should stop providing the adoptions.

My concern is that the licensing law effectively creates a legal “lack” of heterosexual couples for adoptions in certain cases. I read the statement referred to earlier by Cardinal Ratzinger as dealing with a gravely immoral act of placing a child with a homosexual couple as in contradistinction to placing them with a heterosexual couple. I come to that reading from the fact that the rationale he cites deals with having a male and female parent - and the entire article is dealing with homosexual unions - not adoption. I understand that many, including you, believe that statement is a general prohibition on such placements without consideration of any other circumstances. The statement does not say that placement with homosexual couples, per se, is gravely immoral - it deals with the failure to have a male and female parent. That, to me, indicates that potentially other circumstances could enter into the analysis - leaving a child without any male or female parent; single person adoptions, leaving a child in an abusive situation - or any number of other perhaps more gravely immoral situation. I am not advocating homosexual adoption, per se. I simply believe that when faced with the gravely immoral inaction of leaving a child say in an orphanage or abusive family it may be possible, given the artificial lack of alternatives, to place a child in a potentially less gravely immoral situation of letting them be adopted by a homosexual couple. I fully agree that it may not be proper - but without a clear directive from Rome as to which is worse, I believe it may be possible to prudentially come to the conclusion that when forced to choose between two immoral acts that you may chose the act that you believe to be the lesser of two evils - one of which will definately happen if no choice is made. You are not choosing to do evil for good in the sense that you have a choice. You have no choice - either you do the adoption the child into the gravely immoral setting or the child remains in a gravely immoral setting - say an orphanage or abusive family. If Rome were to say that adoption by a gay couple is morally worse than say leaving the child in an orphanage - then OK - the room for prudential choice is gone. I just don’t believe I’ve seen that sort of statement.

I know some about adoption, and I fear, particularly with older and minority children, that adoption is very difficult. I also note that a high profile entity like CCharites has to be careful of the public witness - scandal - it conveys when it gets into these decisions. Kids are real though. A lot of kids placed for adoption need help. I’m just somewhat torn by the whole issue. I was glad to see it wasn’t a money issue - it’s a licensing issue. I’m not saying I absolutely favor gay adoptions - I believe it is indeed gravely immoral as said by Cardinal Ratzinger. I do believe there are other gravely immoral choices surrounding adoption. As a result I’m not too quick to assert never do a homosexual adoption.
 
I cannot get the phrase/question, I employ when I want my children to actually think and then act, " What would Jesus do"?Are we to accept the whole premise that it is Ok to participate in an act that is contrary to the Faith. I smell a strong hint of relativism going on here…
 
40.png
adrienned:
I cannot get the phrase/question, I employ when I want my children to actually think and then act, " What would Jesus do"?Are we to accept the whole premise that it is Ok to participate in an act that is contrary to the Faith. I smell a strong hint of relativism going on here…
Click to expand...
I honestly think Jesus might decide it’s better for a child to be place with a homosexual couple than left on the street to fend for themselves. He might not, too - hence all the qualifiers, and the comments that I don’t believe the Church has given clear guidance. But it seems to me Jesus was really concerned about how people are treated - cure people on the Sabbath though the Pharisees thought it was against the Law of Moses, etc. I don’t know. It’s not relativism when you are dealing with a child with no family - it’s a child with no family.
 
How many children are left on the street to fend for themselves in Boston? I have always found that it is very difficult to adopt a child in the US. There are countless numbers of couples (husbands & wives) who desperately want to give a child a home. Active homosexualtiy is a sin according to the Bible and the Cathecism. I still think it is relativism for the Archdiocese to comply with the regulation.
 
40.png
adrienned:
How many children are left on the street to fend for themselves in Boston? I have always found that it is very difficult to adopt a child in the US. There are countless numbers of couples (husbands & wives) who desperately want to give a child a home. Active homosexualtiy is a sin according to the Bible and the Cathecism. I still think it is relativism for the Archdiocese to comply with the regulation.
Click to expand...
By your first question I am glad to see that you agree with me in theory. Since I have not taken a position on the actual decision of CC - merely stated that they may be in a position to make a prudential judgment - we are not in disagreement. That’s not relativism - it’s a prudential judgment - which may be wrong. I’ve never denied that.

There are indeed many couples who want to adopt. The law artificially affects that number by requiring non-discrimination. A bad thing - I agree. I also note that there are many children who are not adopted - largely older children, handicapped children, sick children and minority children. Many couples who want to adopt won’t even consider those children. Those children are often left in foster homes, institutions, jails, and are out on the street at 18 with no adult support. It’s a difficult issue precisely because there are other issues, like these, affecting children - even in Boston.
 
Vatican to Boston archdiocese: stop gay adoptions
Click to expand...
The Boston archdiocese has received instructions to stop arranging adoptions for homosexual couples, the Boston Herald reports today.The Herald, citing an anonymous Church source, said that Archbishop Sean O’Malley has received a letter from the papal nuncio in Washington, Aarchbishop Gabriel Montalvo, saying that Catholic Charities must discontinue its current practice of helping same-sex couples adopt children.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=41130
 
I am also encouraged that this story indicates that “someone” in Rome is watching and listening to what is going on in the USA. The fact that the papal nuncio had to step in because the local Archbishop would not is a refreshing sign that, although there is some autonomy in the Church hierarchy, there are some issues that are clear and definitive and not to be given to individual interpretation on the part of Bishops and Archbishops. I appreciate the fact that Rome is not afraid that they will be perceived as being not politically correct. If the local Church was less concerned with being pc and more concerned with doing what is right, we might not be in the fix that we now find ourselves.

I am looking forward to seeing who steps in to clarify the recent homosexual instructions when Bishops and Archbishops try to side step the instructions.

God Bless the Pope.
 
40.png
Brad:
I noticed this as well. The Vatican is doing some outstanding work of late that is positively effecting the church in America.
Click to expand...
From The article:
“If we could design the system ourselves, we would not participate in adoptions to gay couples, but we can’t,” he said; “We have to balance various goods.”
Click to expand...
How’s that for moral reasoning?
 
40.png
emsvetich:
I am also encouraged that this story indicates that “someone” in Rome is watching and listening to what is going on in the USA. The fact that the papal nuncio had to step in because the local Archbishop would not is a refreshing sign that, although there is some autonomy in the Church hierarchy, there are some issues that are clear and definitive and not to be given to individual interpretation on the part of Bishops and Archbishops. I appreciate the fact that Rome is not afraid that they will be perceived as being not politically correct. If the local Church was less concerned with being pc and more concerned with doing what is right, we might not be in the fix that we now find ourselves.

I am looking forward to seeing who steps in to clarify the recent homosexual instructions when Bishops and Archbishops try to side step the instructions.

God Bless the Pope.
Click to expand...
Exactly…this is a very hopeful sign for all of us.
 
Interesting article I found while searching various news services:

**Church takes aim at same-sex adoptions: Letter urges Hub archbishop to end Catholic Charities connection
**By Eric Convey
Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - Updated: 06:11 AM EST

A top church official in Washington is urging Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley to stop Catholic Charities of Boston from brokering adoptions unless same-sex couples are excluded, a source close to the hierarchy in the capital told the Herald.

[Full Story](Church takes aim at same-sex adoptions: Letter urges Hub archbishop to end Catholic Charities connection) PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Link to the Boston Herald article:
news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=115863
PF
Click to expand...
And here is the related story about Catholic Charities honoring Mayor Menino who is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

They are doing the same “balancing goods” act i.e. They are doing it for the money.
Tom Menino is as decent, honorable and caring a man as this city has ever had at its helm. Ought that not count for something? Those who would apply instead, some theological test for perfection fail to recognize the good he has done – and the good that will be accomplished with funds raised at this dinner.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
fix:
From The article:

How’s that for moral reasoning?
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, various good aren’t being balanced. A good (adoption) is being balanced with a bad (purchase).
 
40.png
volzcpa:
And here is the related story about Catholic Charities honoring Mayor Menino who is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

They are doing the same “balancing goods” act i.e. They are doing it for the money.
Click to expand...
So the support of baby murder and legal civl perversion are simply “political views” but “caring for the poor” is all about love and decency.

Don’t offend anyone with a vote - that is being nice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top