Refusing Service on Religious Grounds

[TheWarriorMonk]

So all the Catholic adoption agencies that are getting pressured to let homosexuals adopt from them are resisting it without a basis in Catholic theology.

Beats me, but as noted nobody can cite an official Church position, thus it’s a personal opinion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where does the Church state that single, chaste, homosexuals may not adopt? Not personal opinions, but official statements please.

Comes extremeley close to a straw man argument, because single chaste homosexuals rarely if ever approach a Catholic adoption agency to adopt. Sexually active couples have approached, the Church has turned them down, and in some States, the Catholic Church has been forced to close its doors.

And I actually think that you know all this, and you know well the policy on such couples adopting, and yes, there’s official Church policy about it.

 

[Edward_H]

Beats me, but as noted nobody can cite an official Church position, thus it’s a personal opinion.

Well, no. Until we triangulate on the relevant and best documents, it’s minimally accurate to say it’s an official Church opinion (not a personal opinion) because it’s clear that the official Catholic-named organizations have this rule as a formal policy.

It’s clearly and compellingly deductive from natural law and other Church documents on parenting, love and family life.

**Definitely not a personal opinion. **

See:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

vatican.va/themes/famiglia_test/santopadre_en.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Comes extremeley close to a straw man argument, because single chaste homosexuals rarely if ever approach a Catholic adoption agency to adopt. Sexually active couples have approached, the Church has turned them down, and in some States, the Catholic Church has been forced to close its doors.

By the way, this is excellent support for my position. You have a religious organization dealing with the general public. Because they are dealing with the general public, they must comply with laws dealing with the general public, and if they don’t, they will suffer legal consequences. As noted earlier, there is a difference between private/religious organizations dealing with the private/religious organizations and private/religious organizations dealing with the general public.

And I actually think that you know all this, and you know well the policy on such couples adopting, and yes, there’s official Church policy about it.

Given that I am an adoptive parent x2, who inquired domestically (including a Catholic organization) before going international, I am very familiar with matters pertaining to adoption.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

**Definitely not a personal opinion. **

See:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Deals with homosexual unions…not relevant.

vatican.va/themes/famiglia_test/santopadre_en.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

Point out to me where it states that it is better to have no parent than a single parent.

 

[Edward_H]

Deals with homosexual unions…not relevant.

Point out to me where it states that it is better to have no parent than a single parent.

You’re changing your mind.

First, we’ve shown counter to your statement, it’s not a personal opinion, it’s a formal policy.

Second, we’ve shown that the Church has arrived at its adoption policy based on natural law, a deep understanding of the 4th Commandment, other Scripture, and its developed understanding of the role of the natural family, and its inherent good.

Now…you’ve evolved, actually narrowed, your defense into “better than” argument.

I. THE FAMILY IN GOD’S PLAN

The nature of the family

2201 The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.

2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.

2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.

 

[fix]

where does the church state that single, chaste, homosexuals may not adopt? Not personal opinions, but official statements please.

1. The letter recalls that the cdf’s “declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions”; the latter are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (no. 3).

1. Since “n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration…, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good”, the letter goes on to clarify: “although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

1. “sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. In respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

congregation for the doctrine of the faith

I am not even mentioning that the Church does not ordain homosexuals. There is a reason for this.

 

[kelvinf]

No. Please point out where I an contradicting myself

I have never said that the doctor should give advice in conflict with the doctor’s religion.

Once you start giving different advice to people because they have certain characteristics, that is blatant discrimination

^ That’s contradictory if you believe the doctor shouldn’t give advice in conflict with his beliefs.

A doctor not providing, say, IVF services to a lesbian because the doctor does not provide IVF services to anyone since it not discrimination. I have not stated, thus you cannot point out, an example where the doctor must provide services against his faith.

I gave a very simply example of a situation where a doctor could attend to heterosexuals but not to lesbians for instance: #125

Are you stating the the doctor should discriminate against someone solely because they are a lesbian? Even the Church doesn’t do that.

Again, you are wrong. The Church does exactly that. If you really don’t know this, then I would recommend the news section of this forum to you.

 

[kelvinf]

Treating a lesbian with the same respect is not contrary to any Catholic belief I am aware of. If it is, please provide such documentation. It is very easy not to discriminate. In the case at hand, the doctor might not be able to provide any services to the lesbian after consultation. That’s because the doctor doesn’t provide those services she asks for…and the doctor doesn’t provide to anyone else either because they are against his faith. That’s not discrimination.

You are implying that the doctor must provide services against his faith because the patient is a lesbian. That’s not the law, and that’s not what I said. Please read more carefully.

The service in the case I mentioned is consultation and referral.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You’re changing your mind.

First, we’ve shown counter to your statement, it’s not a personal opinion, it’s a formal policy.

Second, we’ve shown that the Church has arrived at its adoption policy based on natural law, a deep understanding of the 4th Commandment, other Scripture, and its developed understanding of the role of the natural family, and its inherent good.

Now…you’ve evolved, actually narrowed, your defense into “better than” argument.

No, my opinion was formed in 2002 when we did our first adoption, and has been consistent ever since. You are only seeing bits of my opinion and filling in the blanks yourself, and when I clarifying my opinions because your assumptions are incorrect, you are assuming I am changing my opinion.

I agree that is preferable to have a man and woman as a parent. However, that is not an absolute requirement, and you have provided nothing that states it is. Parents die, children are abandoned, etc. and the Church simply has not, and is not, going to deny a child a parent, even if it is only one. There have even been notable examples of priest/bishops throughout history that have raised children (not their own). If memory serves me correctly, I think one of the popes raised a child that later became an archbishop.

 

[Edward_H]

congregation for the doctrine of the faith

I am not even mentioning that the Church does not ordain homosexuals. There is a reason for this.

You’re confused.

The point above from the CCC is on the 4th Commandment; the CCC was approved by the CDF.

Has nothing to do with ordaining.

 

[Edward_H]

No, my opinion was formed in 2002 when we did our first adoption, and has been consistent ever since. You are only seeing bits of my opinion and filling in the blanks yourself, and when I clarifying my opinions because your assumptions are incorrect, you are assuming I am changing my opinion.

I agree that is preferable to have a man and woman as a parent. However, that is not an absolute requirement, and you have provided nothing that states it is. Parents die, children are abandoned, etc. and the Church simply has not, and is not, going to deny a child a parent, even if it is only one. There have even been notable examples of priest/bishops throughout history that have raised children (not their own). If memory serves me correctly, I think one of the popes raised a child that later became an archbishop.

When a Catholic adoption agency weighs individual cases, there is an ordered process along the lines of the Church’s teaching, giving weight to married couples, good moral environment and so forth.

I can’t imagine we have such a shortage of adopting parents that we’d ever get to the point where it was an “absolute” requirement to give a child to a single homosexual.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

^ That’s contradictory if you believe the doctor shouldn’t give advice in conflict with his beliefs.

No it isn’t. I appears that you have never dealt with general public in such situations.

Again, you are wrong. The Church does exactly that. If you really don’t know this, then I would recommend the news section of this forum to you.

Incorrect. The difference is that you are looking at the people as lesbians first and foremost, and I look at them as people looking for guidance. Guidance is done in the context of Catholic policies. When you start with Catholic policies and answer anyone’s questions in that context, regardless of who they are, you can never be guilty of discrimination. When you start by looking at people’s characteristics first, you are automatically guilty of discrimination regardless of which path you take after that.

 

[kelvinf]

By the way, this is excellent support for my position. You have a religious organization dealing with the general public. Because they are dealing with the general public, they must comply with laws dealing with the general public, and if they don’t, they will suffer legal consequences. As noted earlier, there is a difference between private/religious organizations dealing with the private/religious organizations and private/religious organizations dealing with the general public.

Is a Catholic school for instance dealing with the public or with ‘private/religious organisations’?

 

[fix]

You’re confused.

The point above from the CCC is on the 4th Commandment; the CCC was approved by the CDF.

Has nothing to do with ordaining.

I am not confused at all. I raised the ordination issue to point out it is not discrimination to exclude those with these tendencies from being a “father”. Be that spiritual or adoptive.

And the my quote was not from the CCC but a Vatican directive/CDF.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

When a Catholic adoption agency weighs individual cases, there is an ordered process along the lines of the Church’s teaching, giving weight to married couples, good moral environment and so forth.

I can’t imagine we have such a shortage of adopting parents that we’d ever get to the point where it was an “absolute” requirement to give a child to a single homosexual.

I assume you mean chaste homosexual.

FWIW, their is absolutely a shortage of adoptive parents for certain children. Unfortunately, many minority and special needs children are unwanted and lost in the system. I’ve actually seen homosexual couples on more than one occasion with minority children.

That particular situation causes great conflict for me internally, because it is most definitely not an ideal situation, but the abuse that many of these children suffer in the system is even worse.

 

[kelvinf]

No it isn’t. I appears that you have never dealt with general public in such situations.

Incorrect. The difference is that you are looking at the people as lesbians first and foremost, and I look at them as people looking for guidance. Guidance is done in the context of Catholic policies. When you start with Catholic policies and answer anyone’s questions in that context, regardless of who they are, you can never be guilty of discrimination. When you start by looking at people’s characteristics first, you are automatically guilty of discrimination regardless of which path you take after that.

Are you now saying the Church doesn’t ‘discriminate’ or what’s your point?

Are you aware of the fact that the Church fires employees (teachers) for coming out as homosexuals or for promoting gay marriage?

 

[Edward_H]

I assume you mean chaste homosexual.

FWIW, their is absolutely a shortage of adoptive parents for certain children. Unfortunately, many minority and special needs children are unwanted and lost in the system. I’ve actually seen homosexual couples on more than one occasion with minority children.

That particular situation causes great conflict for me internally, because it is most definitely not an ideal situation, but the abuse that many of these children suffer in the system is even worse.

There’s actually behavior evidence that substantiates that it’s better to have a bad father than no father.

 

[Edward_H]

Are you now saying the Church doesn’t ‘discriminate’ or what’s your point?

Are you aware of the fact that the Church fires employees (teaches) for coming out as homosexuals or for promoting gay marriage?

Exactly…what is his Warrior’s remaining point?

 

[Julianna]

Is a Catholic school for instance dealing with the public or with ‘private/religious organisations’?

As long as said Catholic School does not accept any monies from the state or federal government, then yes, it is private/religious organization. The religious Principal of the school my kids attended was adament about NOT accepting state or federal education vouchers.