Catholic Charities Forced to Shut Down Services around the Country

[InSearchofGrace]

The news probably made it to the forum, but it’s related to the OP.

A little ray of sunshine and a bit of hope in this battle for the good of adoptive children, at least those in Illinois Catholic Charities.

Illinois Charities Fight Back

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Catholic Charities branches of three Illinois dioceses have filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in order to continue operating according to Catholic principles — by providing foster care and adoption services only to married couples or non-cohabitating singles.

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article%20/illinois-charities-fight-back/#ixzz1QFIvGqA9

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Your post reflects a number of misconceptions.

Discrimination is not necessarily bad. For example, laws discriminate on age with driving and consumption of alcohol. Catholic Charities which is under Church direction does not want to break the law, nor does it wish to deny a child the benefit of a good home. Do you know that Catholic Charities does not place children with cohabiting heterosexual couples as well as same sex couples?

The Church is interested in the over-all well-being of the child, who has a right to be raised by a mother and a father married to each other. A child’s right overrides the ‘right’ of gay couples to adopt. Or, do you believe the opposite? The pro-gay adoption faction talks as if the competing interests are just those by heterosexual adoptive parents v same-sex parents.

Further, if you appreciate history, you would also appreciate that the state is on the wrong side in forcing placement of children to adoptive gay parents. The law that you would have the Church obey, runs contrary to a belief based on doctrine [not just a discipline or practice that is specific to a time or culture]. It is against a moral tenet held well before the secular law requiring CC to place kids with adoptive same-sex couples.

If any group has a particular agenda in this forum, it is the homosexualist group which is pushing for a radical change of society.

Now to your claim that there is “growing evidence of SOME gay households are better adjusted than heterosexual households.” You must be referring to anecdotes that gay activists love to tout, not long term studies. The few pro-gay studies that came out were actually problematic in sampling and self-presentation bias. If you can cite something different, please cite the study.

As a suggestion, you would be served by better and balanced information. Expand your reading outside literature that passes as science by the APA. APA has made itself an instrument of homosexualists and relinquished its independence and responsibility to the pursuit of scientific truths. Fortunately, there are professional and academic organizations that are independent and do not follow APA politics.

Read this from the American College of Pediatricians, Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?.
Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Within the last decade, however, professional health organizations, academics, social policymakers and the media have begun asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.
Don’t forget to review the 44 references as listed at the end.
,

A very substantive post that took a deal of work and research. Thank you for your defense of Christians.

 

[Suudy]

What about a child’s fundamental human right to be raised by both a mother and a father?

Please don’t understand my post as an endorsement of homosexual adoption. I’m only pointing out that homosexual couples that choose to adopt have, on average, advantages that generic heterosexual couples do not have. My point is that any adoptive couple, regardless of gender, likely have the same advantages. To compare adoptive couples to biological parents is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Chipper]

People who want children and plan for them (which adoptive parents are by necessity) are more likely to take an active interest in, and provide a caring environment for, children.

You have just made up some facts, that you needed to launch a “RACIST” statement.

This statement shows “DISCRIMINATION” and “RACISM” against natural parents. I suppose Jesus would have had a better time of it, if he were adopted, instead of being raised by a natural parent.You need to write God a letter and tell em to do it “RIGHT” the next time.

1. Your statement suggests that I as a natural parent, did not provide a caring environment for my children.

Who are you, to judge me like that?

 

[Suudy]

You have just made up some facts, that you needed to launch a “RACIST” statement.

Eh? Racist? Where was race ever mentioned?

This statement shows “DISCRIMINATION” and “RACISM” against natural parents. I suppose Jesus would have had a better time of it, if he were adopted, instead of being raised by a natural parent.You need to write God a letter and tell em to do it “RIGHT” the next time.

It only would be the case if I had said all natural parents need “to do it ‘RIGHT’ next time”.

1. Your statement suggests that I as a natural parent, did not provide a caring environment for my children.

Nowhere did I say all natural parents do not are cannot provide a caring environment for their children. Indeed, look at my statement you quoted:
People who want children and plan for them (which adoptive parents are by necessity), are more likely to take an active interest in, and provide a caring environment for, children.Please re-read that. In the first part of the statement, I included natural parents “who want children and plan for them”. And in the second part, I made no statement about the actual state of you or any other natural parent. I only pointed out that they “are more likely” to be better parents. I didn’t say natural parents are bad parents (relative to adoptive parents), nor did I say adoptive parents are good parents (relative to natural parents). Only that they are more likely because they “want children and plan for them.”

I merely stated that those that choose to adopt, by necessity, want children, have planned for children, and are prepared to raise children. There are cases where natural parents neither wanted to get pregnant, planned to get pregnant, or are even prepared to raise children. Think of the 16 year old high school teenager that gets pregnant and marries the guy. Or the college student that gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.

Now, who do you think will more likely provide a safe, nurturing, caring environment for their children? An adoptive couple or that 16 year old girl?

Who are you, to judge me like that?

BTW, I too am a natural parent. And my wife and I were thrilled and excited when we found out my daughter was on her way. If I’m judging you, then I’m judging myself. But I hope it is more clear that I’m not including those couple who are excited and prepared to have children. So I think your angst is misplaced.

 

[irishpatrick]

There are ever new test cases and causes by gay couples to launch. The curious thing is they do not accept the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, and yet there are those who gravitate to Catholic institutions even when and where they have other options. It is as though they just want to take the whip to scourge the Church on every chance.

Just look at what has started to play out:

Gay couples can already have legal unions, even ‘marriage’ in a few states. Some gay couples feel the need to test their extended ‘right’ to rent the halls connected to the Church, although they have other options as far as wedding party venues go.

Enter gay ‘adoption.’ Gay couples have the option of adopting from non-Catholic agencies, but there are those who would insist on approaching Catholic agencies for the purpose, knowing the dilemma it poses for the Church. If forced, the Church shuts down the service. Everybody loses.

(Reportedly, the above issues were raised in the NY state senate discussion, as it considers passage of the gay ‘marriage’ bill. See here.)

Enter gay ‘parenting.’ Consider the cases of gay couples enrolling their adopted children in Catholic schools. Whatever for, except to roil the Church institution and challenge long time held principles? More of pushing the envelope. They know going in that it would lead to conflict.

The cries get more shrill, does it not.

Can the First Amendment really protect our religious freedom, our freedom to exercise our religion, if or when it comes down to the wire? Gays will and are already demanding to be married in Church, with their real aim of silencing the Church, to render it inutile, in its teaching on homosexuality.

Sure, homosexual apologists say this will never happen, that states ‘always’ have a let out for clergy. The question is can we be sure the state will not be complicit with use of its regulatory and taxation powers, to effectively give undue advantage to the interest of the homosexual minority?

Catholics are called upon to support their Church, not to be participants in or collaborators with the homosexual agenda.
,

I agree–Catholics are called, very few listen.

 

[freddo]

The moral question of homosexual couples adopting children aside, I don’t understand why the Catholic charities were forced to close. The Mormon adoption agency discriminates even more so (they have to be full, active, tithe paying, temple married/worthy Mormons to adopt…certainly homosexuals would not be allowed to adopt from them; in fact, nobody except very obedient Mormons can) and they aren’t shutting down. So why are the Catholic agencies being forced to close?

 

[RainneC]

LOL you can’t shut me up forever. You bigots want complete freedom to discriminate against anyone who doesn’t fit your perfect profiles, but you hide the greatest sinners in your very midst. You claim to be pro-life and pro-child, but the greatest predators upon the innocence of the world wear collars and mitres.

Ban me again if you like - I don’t care. I’m not the one who supports pedophilia and child rape with my tithes and donations while pretending to be morally outraged by love between consenting adults.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

The moral question of homosexual couples adopting children aside, I don’t understand why the Catholic charities were forced to close. The Mormon adoption agency discriminates even more so (they have to be full, active, tithe paying, temple married/worthy Mormons to adopt…certainly homosexuals would not be allowed to adopt from them; in fact, nobody except very obedient Mormons can) and they aren’t shutting down. So why are the Catholic agencies being forced to close?

Does this Mormon adoption agency receive state funds? The Catholic agency wasn’t forced to close, but rather was denied state funding for not following state rules.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

Please don’t understand my post as an endorsement of homosexual adoption. I’m only pointing out that homosexual couples that choose to adopt have, on average, advantages that generic heterosexual couples do not have. My point is that any adoptive couple, regardless of gender, likely have the same advantages. To compare adoptive couples to biological parents is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I totally get what you are saying. All people who adopt(regardless of sexual orientation) have to meet certain qualifications and go through hurdles to become parents. This isn’t when becoming a bio parent.

 

[Dale_M]

American College of Pediatricians, Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?

Worth pointing out is that the American College of Pediatrics is a small organization (perhaps 200 members) which is marked primarily by its socially conservative positions.

It should not be confused with the much, much larger American Academy of Pediatrics (approximately 60,000 members) which disagrees with the ACP on this issue.

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

 

[Stef_Vandenberg]

I find it disgraceful that you condone pedophile behaviors and out and out slam gays. I have firsthand knowledge of everyone I know as well as those I have met in acquaintance, that the religious ones are the ones messed in the head as well as the most biased and judgmental people I have ever met. I find it disturbing how you place yourself on a pedestal as a speaker of God, yet are the one that cannot follow your own book of “Jesus loves us all”. Look in the mirror and do tell me how you have helped and not screwed this world up with your teachings.

Peace Love and Atheism!!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Worth pointing out is that the American College of Pediatrics is a small organization (perhaps 200 members) which is marked primarily by its socially conservative positions.

It should not be confused with the much, much larger American Academy of Pediatrics (approximately 60,000 members) which disagrees with the ACP on this issue.

aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

What is noteworthy is not the size of AAP membership but that it is a vehicle to squash opposing professional views on raising of children. American College of Pediatrics has made a brave stand – a David against Goliath story in the interest of children, not adoptive parents.

The linked 2002 study by AAP which you cited is not definitive. A 2007 analysis of the study here : (you have to read half way down, under the subheading “What Science Says About Gay Unions.”

*The American Academy of Pediatrics released a technical report in 2002 that stated that “children who grow up with one or two gay or lesbian parents fare as well … as children whose parents are heterosexual.” But the report contradicts its own findings and admits that samples were not random and that studies had just begun. There was no long-term follow-up to determine if in fact these children had a healthy outcome. In short, the study is worthless.

Moreover, the report was issued by an eight-person committee and was never seen by 90 percent of the AAP membership, who violently objected when the report was made public. Anger by pediatricians was such that the report’s author sent a confidential e-mail to committee members outlining how the members’ outrage would jeopardize “the work we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change.”

While communities will always have unfortunate situations that should be addressed with compassion, no society should adopt atypical circumstances as a positive model for family life. Children raised by their married biological parents are the healthiest children by an astonishing margin, measured by physical and emotional health as well as educational achievement. The studies underscore common sense: The natural family is the best and only format that should be held up as a model for our society. This model alone renders the most critical service to the nation: The natural family bears, raises, and educates successful, contributing members of society.*

 

[Teelynn]

What is noteworthy is not the size of AAP membership but that it is a vehicle to squash opposing professional views on raising of children. American College of Pediatrics has made a brave stand – a David against Goliath story in the interest of children, not adoptive parents.

The linked 2002 study by AAP which you cited is not definitive. A 2007 analysis of the study here : (you have to read half way down, under the subheading “What Science Says About Gay Unions.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics released a technical report in 2002 that stated that “children who grow up with one or two gay or lesbian parents fare as well … as children whose parents are heterosexual.” But the report contradicts its own findings and admits that samples were not random and that studies had just begun. There was no long-term follow-up to determine if in fact these children had a healthy outcome. In short, the study is worthless.

Moreover, the report was issued by an eight-person committee and was never seen by 90 percent of the AAP membership, who violently objected when the report was made public. Anger by pediatricians was such that the report’s author sent a confidential e-mail to committee members outlining how the members’ outrage would jeopardize “the work we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change.”

While communities will always have unfortunate situations that should be addressed with compassion, no society should adopt atypical circumstances as a positive model for family life. Children raised by their married biological parents are the healthiest children by an astonishing margin, measured by physical and emotional health as well as educational achievement. The studies underscore common sense: The natural family is the best and only format that should be held up as a model for our society. This model alone renders the most critical service to the nation: The natural family bears, raises, and educates successful, contributing members of society.

Thank you for this…"the studies underscore common sense: “common sense”… a strange and totally unused concept by so called intellectuals in 2011.

 

[Dale_M]

What is noteworthy is not the size of AAP membership but that it is a vehicle to squash opposing professional views on raising of children.

I think you have that backwards. The American Academy of Pediatrics is widely respected organization with serious responsibilities in the education of pediatricians.

In contrast, the American College of Pedistricians was created simply to provide professional cover for proponents of socially conservative positions. Its tiny size, recent date of creation (2002), and mission statement are all good indications of that.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think you have that backwards. The American Academy of Pediatrics is widely respected organization with serious responsibilities in the education of pediatricians.

In contrast, the American College of Pedistricians was created simply to provide professional cover for proponents of socially conservative positions. Its tiny size, recent date of creation (2002), and mission statement are all good indications of that.

My doctor tells me their membership is only a small percentage of practicing doctors and that they are heavily slanted towards the liberal end. Or maybe he was talking about the AMA. Now I can’t remember.

Of course, my doctor is also not shy about complaining about Obama’s health care plan, too, whenever I’m there. I like my doctor. A lot.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think you have that backwards. The American Academy of Pediatrics is widely respected organization with serious responsibilities in the education of pediatricians.

In contrast, the American College of Pedistricians was created simply to provide professional cover for proponents of socially conservative positions. Its tiny size, recent date of creation (2002), and mission statement are all good indications of that.

There is nothing wrong with pediatricians who are against gay ‘marriage’ and gay ‘parenting’, as well as against the way sex education is being implemented in the schools, and other issues. In fact, these touch on values that Catholics and other conservative segments in the population hold.

Pediatricians become or remain members of AAP for a good reason. To be part of the biggest professional organization in their field is helpful for business and I’m sure they are respectable. However, medical professional organizations and academia have become avenues for the propagation of social experiments that do not promote the common good, driven by activists who wish to ensconce in society gay ‘marriage’ and adoption by gay couples, which is the subject of the OP.

The division within the APA, first with the psychiatric organization, then with the psychologist organization, rippled to other specialties, including the AAP much later. Much has been covered in this forum how the APA has been politicized following pressured accommodation of gay causes. Said group splintered in reaction to the heavy if not complete domination by gay activists.

Not all are abreast of how medical professional organizations lined up, most on one side, comprising of those that separate faith from their practice and professions completely. There are those that resisted, or formed other associations, wishing to maintain what has proven to be beneficial to society in terms of family structure and individual physical and mental health. Consider the existence of NARTH (not surprisingly maligned by the pro-gay crowd), Catholic Medical Association, United States Psychiatric Association (formerly National Psychiatric Association), Catholic Psychologists and other Christian psychologist organizations.
,

 

[Dale_M]

There is nothing wrong with pediatricians who are against gay ‘marriage’ and gay ‘parenting’, as well as against the way sex education is being implemented in the schools, and other issues. In fact, these touch on values that Catholics and other conservative segments in the population hold.

Indeed, you are right. I only wanted to point out, since it isn’t clear from the name of the organization, that they were founded to advance a particular point of view on social issues. The ACP is different from mainstream medical organizations whose primary focus is on education, research, specialty certification etc. They are not comparable to the American Academy of Pediatrics, despite a similar sounding name.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Civil divorce has been legal for a long time now. Are Churches forced to marry divorced couples if they do not wish to? It seems to me that your fears here are misplaced. Everywhere that same sex marriage (or Civil Union) has been passed into law there is a let-out for churches that do not wish to perform such ceremonies.]

rossum

Really ? Where will your “let-out” be for our children and grandchildren in government run schools who will be taught as a matter of course that it is just as good , just as normal , just as praiseworthy , just as efficacious , just as functional for little Annie to grow up and marry lilltle Jimmy or little Rosie ? Why isn’t this child abuse ?

Where was the " let-out " for that Christian couple in the U. K .that was recently denied placement of either a foster child or an adopted child because they said their faith taught them that homosexual behavior is sinfull ( even though they had a successful track record for taking in children ) ? Misplaced fears ?

Mother nature in the mammalian world is heterosexist . By that I mean she rewards heterosexual behavior and penalizes homosexual behavior . This never stops the Left…

In Norway , which has had de-facto SSM since the early 90’s , illegitimacy rose from 39% to 50% in the 1st decade od SSM . What does the " let-out " for society on this look like ?

Tell me why you think marriage can survive both no-fault divorce and SSM ? No-fault divorce changed our attitudes and behaviors regarding the permanence of marriage . SSM will change our behaviors and attitudes regarding the purpose of marriage .The law has instructive value , what you accept you teach ! Any behavior the state endorses you get more of !

 

[rossum]

Really ? Where will your “let-out” be for our children and grandchildren in government run schools who will be taught as a matter of course that it is just as good , just as normal , just as praiseworthy , just as efficacious , just as functional for little Annie to grow up and marry lilltle Jimmy or little Rosie ? Why isn’t this child abuse ?

I would expect a government run school to teach the laws of the land as passed by the government. Those laws include not discriminating on the grounds of sexuality and allowing gay marriage in New York State. The UK only has Civil Partnerships. In most cases the Catholic Church supports not discriminating against homosexuals, for examples in employment or housing. If you really don’t like what the government schools teach then send your children to a private Catholic school or home school them.

Where was the " let-out " for that Christian couple in the U. K .that was recently denied placement of either a foster child or an adopted child because they said their faith taught them that homosexual behavior is sinfull ( even though they had a successful track record for taking in children ) ? Misplaced fears ?

Fostering children is a state run function, it is not a religious sacrament. The local authority has a set of national guidelines that it has to follow, which include non-discrimination. Remember that the children being fostered are a mixture of heterosexual and homosexual children.

Mother nature in the mammalian world is heterosexist . By that I mean she rewards heterosexual behavior and penalizes homosexual behavior . This never stops the Left.

Nature is more subtle than you may think. See: Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct

In Norway , which has had de-facto SSM since the early 90’s , illegitimacy rose from 39% to 50% in the 1st decade od SSM . What does the " let-out " for society on this look like ?

So, it was obviously caused by the fall of communism in 1989. Look up the Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Tell me why you think marriage can survive both no-fault divorce and SSM ? No-fault divorce changed our attitudes and behaviors regarding the permanence of marriage . SSM will change our behaviors and attitudes regarding the purpose of marriage .The law has instructive value , what you accept you teach ! Any behavior the state endorses you get more of !

Civil marriage has changed a lot over the years. There was a time when the husband effectively owned his wife, and also owned all of her property. Civil marriage has been changing for a very long time; I don’t see this change as being very significant. Will two people decide not to get married because Julie and Jane next door are marrying each other?

Two heterosexual friends of mine recently got married after 33 years living together because two of their gay friends got civil partnershipped (after a mere 30 years together).

rossum