For those who are staunch anti-abortion

[Corki]

I am against abortion as much as the next Catholic but I wonder if it would be better to instead of praying outside abortion clinics, to hand out cash outside of abortion clinics to single mothers in order to encourage them to keep their baby (with promises of further monetary support.

All the replies to this thread were great, however I dont get the well people should be responsible and abstain from sex, why should we have to shell out cash for their mistake- argument made earlier. It seems to punish a child for the sin of the parent.

While we don’t hand out cash, the sidewalk counselors do tell the mothers about the Gabriel project where they can get free supplies, make sure they know where to get free medical care and other financial help. It’s not like we are offering just spiritual support; we are attending to their material needs as well.

 

[Corki]

I think you linked the wrong article. This article is about Catholic Charities not wanting to follow the rules of the State while continuing to be funded by the State. It has nothing to with Catholics adopting children. No where in the article is there a hint of any hindrances to Catholics adopting children. Catholics are not required to use Catholic Charities as it’s only source for adoptions…they can use any adoption agency. And there are no laws that I know of that restrict Catholics from adopting…quite the opposite is true in the article you linked.

I know you like to say that on all the threads related to Catholic Charities but I believe the situation is different in Illinois. The Illinois law applies to all adoptions, not just those funded by the state. It directly addresses adoption law, not just state funding. The state, in the linked article was ending its contract with Catholic Charities but under the new law, CC couldn’t do adoptions or place children in foster care even completely self-funded. The only thing they can do is to refer couples to attorneys for private adoptions.

 

[Rence]

I know you like to say that on all the threads related to Catholic Charities but I believe the situation is different in Illinois. The Illinois law applies to all adoptions, not just those funded by the state. It directly addresses adoption law, not just state funding. The state, in the linked article was ending its contract with Catholic Charities but under the new law, CC couldn’t do adoptions or place children in foster care even completely self-funded. The only thing they can do is to refer couples to attorneys for private adoptions.

It’s really no different in Illinois. Adoption is a secular/State/civil/legal arrangement. The adoption agencies are working as brokers (matching children with families) for the State, regardless of whether they are religious or secular in nature. There is no Catholic adoption. There is only one kind of adoption in the US, and it’s purely a legal arrangement. So, because it is a legal matter, regulated by the State, the State imposes rules that have to be followed by anyone who brokers for them. And yes, the Church can still work in the community matching pregnant women who want to give up their child for adoption, and Catholic couples (or non-cohabitating Catholic singles), leaving both parties to use a lawyer for the private adoption. However, if they want to be involved in the State’s function, they have to follow the laws of the State.

 

[Corki]

It’s really no different in Illinois. Adoption is a secular/State/civil/legal arrangement. The adoption agencies are working as brokers (matching children with families) for the State, regardless of whether they are religious or secular in nature. There is no Catholic adoption. There is only one kind of adoption in the US, and it’s purely a legal arrangement. So, because it is a legal matter, regulated by the State, the State imposes rules that have to be followed by anyone who brokers for them. And yes, the Church can still work in the community matching pregnant women who want to give up their child for adoption, and Catholic couples (or non-cohabitating Catholic singles), leaving both parties to use a lawyer for the private adoption. However, if they want to be involved in the State’s function, they have to follow the laws of the State.

Exactly, which is a different situation than your original assertion, “This article is about Catholic Charities not wanting to follow the rules of the State while continuing to be funded by the State.”

kimmie’s original comment was that this will make it harder for Catholics to adopt. That is true. If there are no Catholic agencies, Catholic’s especially Catholic birth mothers, will have fewer options and it will be much harder to complete adoption. She didn’t say it was now impossible, just that the new law makes it harder. It is harder (and more expensive) to use attorneys and private matching than to operate as an agency. It is harder to do adoptions without first being able to offer foster care.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Absolutely yes.

 

[kimmielittle]

Exactly, which is a different situation than your original assertion, “This article is about Catholic Charities not wanting to follow the rules of the State while continuing to be funded by the State.”

kimmie’s original comment was that this will make it harder for Catholics to adopt. That is true. If there are no Catholic agencies, Catholic’s especially Catholic birth mothers, will have fewer options and it will be much harder to complete adoption. She didn’t say it was now impossible, just that the new law makes it harder. It is harder (and more expensive) to use attorneys and private matching than to operate as an agency. It is harder to do adoptions without first being able to offer foster care.

Yeppers!! Thank you

 

[kimmielittle]

I know you like to say that on all the threads related to Catholic Charities but I believe the situation is different in Illinois. The Illinois law applies to all adoptions, not just those funded by the state. It directly addresses adoption law, not just state funding. The state, in the linked article was ending its contract with Catholic Charities but under the new law, CC couldn’t do adoptions or place children in foster care even completely self-funded. The only thing they can do is to refer couples to attorneys for private adoptions.

 

[kimmielittle]

Perhaps what she meant was that Democrats are making it harder for the Catholic church to provide adoption services and since the church is one of, if not the largest, provider of adoption services, this makes it more difficult for the children to be adopted at all. It would also seem from what was written in the article that not only has Illinois removed funding from Catholic adoption agencies but has removed their legal right to operate. I don’t know if that is true though and I don’t really consider Huffington Post a particularly acurate source of detailed news. If it is true, however, it would imply that the persons who introduced and interpret the law in question believe that homosexual couples’ desire to raise children trumps the children’s right to be adopted at all, which I find somewhat disturbing. As you said, there are other sources for adoptions and if couples don’t meet the standards set by Catholic Charities for whatever reason, it seems to me they can go elsewhere and try their luck. What sense does it make to slow down the adoption process for babies who desperately need a stable, loving home by removing contracts from a good provider? I could possibly see the point of such a law being enforced on a government-run adoption agency, but this is clearly a case of trying to force the hand of a faith-based organization to act in a way that is contrary to their faith at the expense of children.

PS I lost the other links. I think it originally was an AP Report

Some reading

blog.heritage.org/2011/07/11/crushing-the-nations-venerable-adoption-agencies—and-religious-liberty/

reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-illinois-adoption-catholics-idUSTRE75709120110608

 

[maryjk]

… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

I need to borrow a car seat, then I can be on my way to pick up the newest addition to our family.

I know many families that feel the same way.

 

[kimmielittle]

I think you linked the wrong article.

I linked to the right article.

This article is about Catholic Charities not wanting to follow the rules of the State while continuing to be funded by the State.

Absolutely

It has nothing to with Catholics adopting children.

Please explain your thoughts on this.

I believe, this ruling is, in fact, reverse discrimination.

The 14th Amendment.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not based on race… but on religious affiliation.

See Alan Bakke
studyworld.com/newsite/reportessay/socialissues/Political%5CThe_Allan_Bakke_Case-321957.htm

Catholic Charities says the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious adoption agencies from the provisions relied upon by the Attorney General’s office and that the new law includes protection for the religious freedom of organizations like theirs.

christianpost.com/news/illinois-gay-civil-unions-law-picks-on-catholic-charities-50986/

Human Rights Act of Illinois:

(775 ILCS 5/1‑101.1)
Sec. 1‑101.1. Construction. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring any employer, employment agency, or labor organization to give preferential treatment or special rights based on sexual orientation or to implement affirmative action policies or programs based on sexual orientation.
(Source: P.A. 93‑1078, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

(N) Religion. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, except that with respect to employers, for the purposes of Article 2, “religion” has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (F) of Section 2‑101.

(F) Religion. “Religion” with respect to employers includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2266&ChapterID=64

The Attorney General has to prove that Catholic Charities discriminated against gays.
As you admit, Catholic Charities is not the only adoption resource available to homosexuals or heterosexuals.

If it were the only available source they might have a case.

This, IMO is a clear case of LGT… State lawmakers ] of reverse discrimination and picked a particular segmented organization people ] to violate the 14th amendment…AND The Human Rights Act of Illinois. Note above Religious clause.

The case is / has been in Court …IMO The Attorney General didn’t feel fit to see the case in a court of law…but used his / her office to promote an agenda.

 

[Rence]

I linked to the right article.
Absolutely

Please explain your thoughts on this.

I thought I did…many times. But here it is again: Adoption is a secular/State/civil/legal arrangement. The adoption agencies are working as brokers (matching children with families) for the State, regardless of whether they are religious or secular in nature. There is no Catholic adoption. There is only one kind of adoption in the US, and it’s purely a legal arrangement. So, because it is a legal matter, regulated by the State, the State imposes rules that have to be followed by anyone who brokers for them. And yes, the Church can still work in the community matching pregnant women who want to give up their child for adoption, and Catholic couples (or non-cohabitating Catholic singles), leaving both parties to use a lawyer for the private adoption. However, if they want to be involved in the State’s function, they have to follow the laws of the State.

I believe, this ruling is, in fact, reverse discrimination.

I know you do, and I’m sorry about that. But I don’t believe it’s reverse discrimination. If the State says that applicants should be given equal status and not be discriminated against based on religion or sexual orientation, then that’s the law. It’s not reverse discrimination. The law is in place because the State is comprised of many individuals and family units, not just Catholic ones. It has to represent them all, not only one.

The 14th Amendment.

The Attorney General has to prove that Catholic Charities discriminated against gays.
As you admit, Catholic Charities is not the only adoption resource available to homosexuals or heterosexuals.

If it were the only available source they might have a case.

Right, Catholic Charities is not the only adoption resource, it’s just non-compliant with the State. And compliant resources have already taken on the responsibility of the children and cases that Catholic Charities was managing before the State decided not to contract with them again…

 

[kimmielittle]

I thought I did…many times. But here it is again: Adoption is a secular/State/civil/legal arrangement. The adoption agencies are working as brokers (matching children with families) for the State, regardless of whether they are religious or secular in nature. There is no Catholic adoption. There is only one kind of adoption in the US, and it’s purely a legal arrangement. So, because it is a legal matter, regulated by the State, the State imposes rules that have to be followed by anyone who brokers for them. And yes, the Church can still work in the community matching pregnant women who want to give up their child for adoption, and Catholic couples (or non-cohabitating Catholic singles), leaving both parties to use a lawyer for the private adoption. However, if they want to be involved in the State’s function, they have to follow the laws of the State.

I know you do, and I’m sorry about that. But I don’t believe it’s reverse discrimination. If the State says that applicants should be given equal status and not be discriminated against based on religion or sexual orientation, then that’s the law. It’s not reverse discrimination. The law is in place because the State is comprised of many individuals and family units, not just Catholic ones. It has to represent them all, not only one.

Right…that means that people applying for State regulated matters won’t be discriminated against. In order to work for the State, you can’t discriminate against people based on these criteria.

Right, Catholic Charities is not the only adoption resource, it’s just non-compliant with the State. And compliant resources have already taken on the responsibility of the children and cases that Catholic Charities was managing before the State decided not to contract with them again…

Let’s make this easy

Can you OR the Attorney General prove / offer evidence that Catholic Charities discriminated?

As of yet, The Attorney General has not done so

Yet… he/ she ruled against Catholic Charities. NO COURT / DUE PROCESS - He / She can bring suit / defend… but NOT decide Legal or Illegal.

In violation, not only, of the Illinois Human Rights Act. The very law the Attorney General is saying Catholic Charities violated ]… BUT the Federal 14th Amendment, as well.

 

[Allegra]

I still don’t understand the logic behind this arguement. If the contention is that adoption is a secular institution and that only the state grants adoptions, not the church, then what is the problem? The state can continue to grant adoptions to whoever they want. All the church does is match children up with prosepctive parents and provide legal documentation and help. It’s the judge that decides if the adoption goes through. If homosexual couples want to adopt children through other agencies, then they are still allowed to do it.
I don’t really understand what the benefit of this law is supposed to be anyway. Why is the state concerned with who the church doesn’t pick? No kids are being harmed by who the church doesn’t pick. If the concern was who the church did pick, for example if they were using the kids for slave labor, then I could see a concern. I can see absolutely no injustice in the way things were handled before this law was passed and as far as I’m concerned it’s merely an attempt to punish religious institutions for their beliefs and in reality the only ones being punished are the children who have to wait in foster care until the paperwork gets through. I should like to see some evidence that this has not caused a backup in adoption proceedings. I’ve looked online and I haven’t found anything to suggest that the other agencies are picking up the slack. Also, I’d like to know if these agencies are as affordable as Catholic Charities was. I don’t know what the “adoption market” in Illinois is like, but I know of lots of families who’ve adopted and they’ve almost all gone through CC because other private adoption firms are too expensive.

 

[Muze]

… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.

There’s a two year waiting list for newborn adoptions.

Problem solved.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I would certainly adopt a child before I’d let it be murdered. But given all the people who would love to adopt and can’t because of the lengthy adoption process, I doubt it would be hard at all to find families for the least of God’s children.

 

[estesbob]

… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.

I am opposed to the death penalty. Does that mean I should be willing to house convicted murderers?

Your premise, BTW, seems to be that ones responsibility to care for the needy goes away if they support killing the needy/

 

[Corki]

I am opposed to the death penalty. Does that mean I should be willing to house convicted murderers?

OT but we had a visiting priest who said just that. He was evidently offended by a pro-life display we had (we were doing a RL baby shower). He scolded us in his homily saying that until we were willing to bring people out of prison and into our homes, we should not call ourselves “pro life”.

 

[estesbob]

OT but we had a visiting priest who said just that. He was evidently offended by a pro-life display we had (we were doing a RL baby shower). He scolded us in his homily saying that until we were willing to bring people out of prison and into our homes, we should not call ourselves “pro life”.

How sad. I would mention it to your Pastor.

 

[Allegra]

OT but we had a visiting priest who said just that. He was evidently offended by a pro-life display we had (we were doing a RL baby shower). He scolded us in his homily saying that until we were willing to bring people out of prison and into our homes, we should not call ourselves “pro life”.

What in the world? I could understand saying, “unless you are willing to accept an increase in taxes to take care of them…” but that doesn’t even make sense! The alternative to the death penalty isn’t setting them free its prison for life!

 

[Corki]

How sad. I would mention it to your Pastor.

Several people did. It was one time when I was sorely tempted to walk out. But since he was a guest, I was hospitable.