Catholic agencies face dilemma

[buffalo]

Catholic agencies face dilemma

Vatican stance against allowing same-sex couples to adopt children conflicts with state anti-bias law

A 3-year-old Vatican document that condemns the adoption of children by gay couples appears to put some area Catholic human service agencies at odds with state anti-
discrimination laws. The document characterizes the adoption of children by same-sex couples as “gravely immoral.”

 Some states, including New  York, prohibit discrimination  against gay couples trying to adopt  children.

more…

 

[Orionthehunter]

I see no dilemma. We need to find the right test case and be prepared to fight it to the Supreme Court under a Freedom of Religion issue. The stakes are bigger than just this issue.

We have laws that say Catholic hospitals must perform abortion services, pharmacies and pharmacists must make available contraceptives, Catholic high schools must have “even-handed” sex education curriculums (even-handed means they must discuss abortion and contraceptive options), Catholic Universities have to allow “social/advocacy” groups on campus even if they advocate positions contrary to the Church’s teaching and on and on.

We need to pierce this legal sanction of the imposition of these hostile practices on us. While we might have to “tolerate” (and sometimes even support) in our multi-cultural society certain civil rights to those who believe/practice differently than us, we don’t have to tolerate them imposing their views on us.

 

[WhatMeWorry]

If Christians/the Church can not place a creche on the front lawn at the courthouse at Christmas due to “separation of church and state,” then by the same token, the government can not insist on making “church policy/dogma/doctrine” when it comes to rules that violate that church’s moral code.

So, for example, if the government wants to ok same-sex adoptions through a public agency, then they can do that, and I don’t have to like it or agree with it. But they need to keep their noses out of the private, church-run adoption agencies. Doesn’t the separation of Church/state work the other direction? Or only when it suits the government’s agenda, hmmm?

I suppose if the Church doesn’t cave in to the government, they’ll want to yank their tax-exempt status. Call it what it is–extortion. That’s probably next.

I hope the Church stands firm and doesn’t ever back down. As far as I’m concerned, this is just more of Satan’s tricks, using the government to do his dirty work.

 

[LRThunder]

WhatMeWorry:

If Christians/the Church can not place a creche on the front lawn at the courthouse at Christmas due to “separation of church and state,” then by the same token, the government can not insist on making “church policy/dogma/doctrine” when it comes to rules that violate that church’s moral code.

So, for example, if the government wants to ok same-sex adoptions through a public agency, then they can do that, and I don’t have to like it or agree with it. But they need to keep their noses out of the private, church-run adoption agencies. Doesn’t the separation of Church/state work the other direction? Or only when it suits the government’s agenda, hmmm?

I suppose if the Church doesn’t cave in to the government, they’ll want to yank their tax-exempt status. Call it what it is–extortion. That’s probably next.

I hope the Church stands firm and doesn’t ever back down. As far as I’m concerned, this is just more of Satan’s tricks, using the government to do his dirty work.

Agreed. Those who are holding the “Separation of Church and State” banner need to realize it’s a two-way street. They also need to realize that phrase is actually not in the Constitution. The government can’t establish a religion (no state-church, ala Church of England) nor can it inhibit the free exercise of religion.

 

[buffalo]

LRThunder:

Agreed. Those who are holding the “Separation of Church and State” banner need to realize it’s a two-way street. They also need to realize that phrase is actually not in the Constitution. The government can’t establish a religion (no state-church, ala Church of England) nor can it inhibit the free exercise of religion.

and it cannot hinder its influence on government.

 

[Brendan]

Some professionals in the adoption field expressed concern that the Vatican teaching could lead other Catholic agencies to drop high-quality adoption programs.

So the VATICAN teaching is the problem here. How about the attempts by the government to tell the Church who it can and cannot offer ministry to???

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

So the VATICAN teaching is the problem here. How about the attempts by the government to tell the Church who it can and cannot offer ministry to???

Ahhh…that pesky church and state thing…

Personally, I think we need a carve out that allows the church to stay in the adoption business without going against the basic teachings of the church.

But…that opens a real pandora’s box…because there are organizations currently not receiving public money so they can promote some strange beliefs (Bob Jones university comes to mind). I wouldn’t want tax dollars going there.

This is why I wish wish wish that any changes in marriage law would be done democratically. Which, I suppose, would lead to a larger and louder fight. But doing this through the courts has just caused one chaotic problem after another. Because, clearly, we aren’t just talking about the rights of two people to have legal status as a couple.