Mass. Catholic Charities to Be Required to Support Homosexual Adoption

[WanderAimlessly]

cathgal:

I say throw the funds back in their face and let them handle the biz! The Church will not be a participant in this gravely immoral practice!

Agreed. I say it is time we stand up to these secular bullies.

PF

 

[Liberalsaved]

WanderAimlessly:

Agreed. I say it is time we stand up to these secular bullies.

PF

If the secular were bullies, they would have just legislated religion out of the country by now. Get a grip, please.

 

[TPJCatholic]

frommi,

We are not allowed to do evil in order to try to obtain a certain good. I do not want to see those “other” 700+ kids go homeless, yet the Church has a God given mandate to what is right, and allowing gay adoptions is not right…that constitutes doing evil in order to obtain good.

 

[John_Kearns]

Wolseley:

You always hear the mantra from the liberals about “Separation of church and state!”, which, of course, means that the church should keep its nose out of what the state does.

It’s really a shame that they’re all too intellectually-challenged to understand that the concept works both ways: the state should also keep its nose out of what the church is doing.

Perhaps its time for the Church to start engaging in some good old-fashioned civil disobediance.

“No, we won’t.”

“You will, or else.”

“Make us.”

Exactly. Thank you!

 

[frommi]

TPJCatholic:

frommi,

We are not allowed to do evil in order to try to obtain a certain good. I do not want to see those “other” 700+ kids go homeless, yet the Church has a God given mandate to what is right, and allowing gay adoptions is not right…that constitutes doing evil in order to obtain good.

I’m not sure it’s as black/white as you make it…I mean, ostensibly war is an ‘evil’ act, but can be justified in certain circumstances…but we never say that war is ‘good’.

I think its the type of question that has to be wrestled with a bit…

The church has an obligation to be hard where others are easy and easy where others are hard…

 

[John_Kearns]

frommi:

They certainly have that right, but you do have to consider if its worth stopping the adoptions that do fall within the boundaries of appropriateness.

The reality is that Mass. recognizes gay marriage. Therefore those couples have the same rights and privileges, including adoption of children.

It is what it is for now.

Rights come from God. And so, regardless of how many evil justices say otherwise, these “couples” have no such rights.

 

[frommi]

John Kearns:

Rights come from God. And so, regardless of how many evil justices say otherwise, these “couples” have no such rights.

The law says otherwise…the church has to follow the rule of law if they wish to receive the ‘laws’ money.

It seems silly to me to give up that strong financial backing because of a handful of couples who have adopted children.

I mean…has anyone heard of these kids being mistreated or something?

 

[Elzee]

frommi:

The church has an obligation to be hard where others are easy and easy where others are hard…

No it doesn’t. What it has an obligation to do is guard and defend the deposit of faith and morals entrusted to it more than 2000 years ago.

 

[TPJCatholic]

frommi,

Placing souls at risk is not something the Church can do. By allowing gay adoption, the Church is an accomplice in damaging souls…imo.

 

[Wolseley]

frommi:

The law says otherwise…the church has to follow the rule of law if they wish to receive the ‘laws’ money.

So simply because it’s a law, that makes it something we all have to ahere to?

Ever hear of the Nuremberg Laws? They were laws, too. Legislated, voted on, and everything. Legal, even.

Would you have backed those, too?

It seems silly to me to give up that strong financial backing because of a handful of couples who have adopted children.

"It seems silly to me to give up that strong governmental support over a handful of Jewish shopkeepers.

I mean…has anyone heard of these kids being mistreated or something?

That’s not the point. The point is, the Church is called to be the guardian of God’s laws, and if man’s laws come into conflict with God’s laws, then we are bound by our baptisms to resist man’s law in favor of God’s (Acts 5:29).

 

[frommi]

Wolseley:

So simply because it’s a law, that makes it something we all have to ahere to?

Ever hear of the Nuremberg Laws? They were laws, too. Legislated, voted on, and everything. Legal, even.

Would you have backed those, too?

"It seems silly to me to give up that strong governmental support over a handful of Jewish shopkeepers.

That’s not the point. The point is, the Church is called to be the guardian of God’s laws, and if man’s laws come into conflict with God’s laws, then we are bound by our baptisms to resist man’s law in favor of God’s (Acts 5:29).

I think you should be careful with any kind of holocaustal analogies…they degrade conversation so much. Nothing will ever top the holocaust in terms of pure evil. So lets leave that alone.

It seems dangerous for the church to cut and run, stopping good work that its doing, simply to prevent something that we don’t even know that much about.

 

[John_Kearns]

frommi:

I think you should be careful with any kind of holocaustal analogies…they degrade conversation so much. Nothing will ever top the holocaust in terms of pure evil. So lets leave that alone.

The Holocaust has already been topped by the Roe/Doe decisions and the 40 million+ deaths that have so far resulted.

 

[Riley259]

cathgal:

It is never right to do evil to justify good.

The state can do whatever they want, but the Church doesn’t have to be a part of it. Don’t worry about the adoptions. Some one else will take care of it if not the Church. If the state wants to take over that work load, let them have it!

I agree - the right thing to do is to let the state handle the adoption aspect. You can’t justify adoption by gay parents - can’t do evil to get good.

 

[frommi]

Riley259:

I agree - the right thing to do is to let the state handle the adoption aspect. You can’t justify adoption by gay parents - can’t do evil to get good.

I guess I don’t see how its unambigously evil.

 

[fix]

frommi:

I guess I don’t see how its unambigously evil.

What about this?:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection…

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral…
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[frommi]

fix:

What about this?:

That’s nice…but I guess I was just thinking of the hypotheticals…

Let’s say a child’s only surviving relative is gay…and happens to co-habitate…the child should be denied the only family they have left in order to prevent a supposed ‘evil’?

Again…I don’t see this as an unambigous issue…certainly when its something we know less about than we would like.

 

[fix]

frommi:

That’s nice…but I guess I was just thinking of the hypotheticals…

Let’s say a child’s only surviving relative is gay…and happens to co-habitate…the child should be denied the only family they have left in order to prevent a supposed ‘evil’?

Again…I don’t see this as an unambigous issue…certainly when its something we know less about than we would like.

Why would something so contrary to the good ever be justifiable? Should children be placed with anyone, family or not, that would intentionaly expose the child to moral evil?

 

[John_Kearns]

fix:

What about this?:

That pretty much clears it up. Thank you.

 

[TPJCatholic]

They should sell and get out. Find other ways to serve the poor and needy.

 

[bones_IV]

frommi:

I think you should be careful with any kind of holocaustal analogies…they degrade conversation so much. Nothing will ever top the holocaust in terms of pure evil. So lets leave that alone.

It seems dangerous for the church to cut and run, stopping good work that its doing, simply to prevent something that we don’t even know that much about.

Are you trivializing the deaths of 40 million plus dead babies? Sure sounds like it from the tone of your post. You can’t be both catholic and pro-gay.