Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Adoption, kids, and the gay agenda
Townhall.com ^ | March 16,2006 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 03/16/2006 8:37:53 AM PST by serendipity_kate

On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston had announced that it was being forced to shut down its highly regarded adoption services, since it could not in good conscience comply with the government's demand that it place children for adoption with homosexual couples. Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as "gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese had hoped to obtain a waiver on religious-freedom grounds. But when legislative leaders refused to consider the request, the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: abuse; activism; adoption; boston; catholic; catholiccharities; children; family; gay; gayagenda; gayrights; homosexual; homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; prolife; religion; sexualorientation; society
What a tragedy it is to lose such an important and successful ministry, run by the best Catholic organization in the nation. I particularly like this column because Jacoby points out that Catholic Charities "made no effort to block same-sex couples from adopting. It asked no one to endorse its belief that homosexual adoption is wrong. [...]In at least one Massachusetts diocese, in fact, the standing Catholic Charities policy had been to refer same-sex couples to other adoption agencies." Jacoby is absolutely right to also point out that CC "excels at arranging adoptions for children in foster care, particularly those who are older or handicapped, or who bear the scars of abuse or addiction"--and to be forced to discontinue this service is just appalling. My deepest sympathies go out to the Archdiocese of Boston.
1 posted on 03/16/2006 8:37:55 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

"I particularly like this column because Jacoby points out that Catholic Charities "made no effort to block same-sex couples from adopting."

That line confused me - does that mean the church WAS doing same sex adoptions?


2 posted on 03/16/2006 8:39:26 AM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate
Now this is starting to make sense. When this story first hit the news I didn't understand why the Catholic Church had to shut down its adoption services because of its refusal to comply with Massachusetts adoption regulationsa. I figured the Church could simply have run their own adoption service according to their own religious mandate (i.e., placing Catholic children in with stable Catholic families, etc.) regardless of what the government said.

Now it looks as if there really isn't much of a religious element to this thing at all. Despite its name, Catholic Charities isn't a religious organization . . . it's basically an operating agency of the government.

3 posted on 03/16/2006 8:48:14 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

The Church itself was not facilitating same-sex adoptions, but as Jacoby (and I) pointed out, they were referring same-sex couples to other agencies.

Jacoby's "no effort to block" is referring to the fact that Catholic Charities did not try to take down the legislation that prevented the 'discrimination' against same-sex adoption, but rather sought the religious exemption for themselves. They simply wanted to run their ministry in accordance with Catholic doctrine--but that wasn't possible with Massachusetts legislation.


4 posted on 03/16/2006 8:51:38 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

ping!


5 posted on 03/16/2006 8:52:19 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Catholic Charities is following the law--it is not an operating agency of the government.


6 posted on 03/16/2006 8:52:43 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Despite its name, Catholic Charities isn't a religious organization . . . it's basically an operating agency of the government.

Just like all the "Catholic" hospitals. They live off the taxpayer teat, and then demand to be allowed to impose their specific religious beliefs to limit the types of services they provide to non-Catholic patients at general taxpayer expense.

Sadly, the Catholic Church is by no means the only religious denomination in this country that's in bed with the socialist government. No mainstream church or branch of Judaism or branch of Islam is preaching to their followers to dismantle the welfare state.

7 posted on 03/16/2006 8:58:41 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate
run by the best Catholic organization in the nation.

Anyone who thinks Catholic Charities of Boston is the "best Catholic organization in the nation" is nuts. The reason this became an issue is precisely because Catholic Charities of Boston was allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. The Bishops of Massachusetts said stop and seven board members of CC resigned in protest. Jacoby failed to mention that in his column. CC of Boston is an apostate organization operating under the umbrella of the Church. A situation that is, unfortunately, not unique to the Archdiocese of Boston. Hopefully CC of Boston, with the firm hand of the Bishops guiding them, will become an organization worthy of the title Catholic.

8 posted on 03/16/2006 8:58:44 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate
The poor kids lose and the queers and politicians will tsk, tsk about how much they care. Hypocrites. They don't give a fat rat's asx about the kids, only about queer "rights".

One day, some people will have to answer to a higher law the the USSM {Union of soviet socialists mass} legislators.

9 posted on 03/16/2006 8:59:56 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

Typical of the turd burglar's agenda, they have no tolerance for anyone who will not submit to their every demand.


10 posted on 03/16/2006 9:00:07 AM PST by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
sorry ma'am you are dead wrong.

If Catholic Charities were an "operating agency of the government", how could they tell the government they were ceasing to arrange adoptions?

Catholic Charities is the premier Catholic charity for all type of social services, run similarly to Lutheran Social Services.

Lurking'
11 posted on 03/16/2006 9:05:26 AM PST by LurkingSince'98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
sorry ma'am you are dead wrong.

If Catholic Charities were an "operating agency of the government", how could they tell the government they were ceasing to arrange adoptions?

Catholic Charities is the premier Catholic charity for all type of social services, run similarly to Lutheran Social Services.

Lurking'
12 posted on 03/16/2006 9:05:31 AM PST by LurkingSince'98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

I was commending Catholic Charities as the best Catholic organization in the nation--not specifically their Boston chapter. I apologize if that was not clear.


13 posted on 03/16/2006 9:06:31 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate
If Catholic Charities were truly a religious organization, then it could easily ignore the law without fearing too much of a backlash. The reality is that Catholic Charities does not have a specific religious mission, does not hire staff that are exclusively Catholic, and does not provide charitable services primarily to Catholics. In addition, its primary sources of revenue for its "charitable" work are Federal and state governments.

There was a lot of controversy in the last couple of years about an attempt by the government of San Francisco to impose their nihilistic requirements for birth control and abortion insurance coverage for all employers in the city. Catholic Charities fought this on religious grounds, but lost in court. The court cited the factors I listed above in determining that CC is not a religious organization, and after reviewing the facts of the case I had to agree with the court on that one.

14 posted on 03/16/2006 9:07:53 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

bump


15 posted on 03/16/2006 9:09:28 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

"...and does not provide charitable services primarily to Catholics."

I assume you are not a Catholic if you think that a Catholic charity should provide charitable services primarily to Catholics.


16 posted on 03/16/2006 9:15:06 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

Characterizing Catholic Charities, regardless of what diocese it is operating in, as the best Catholic organization in the country is also nuts. Lots of socialists who thumb their noses at the teachings of the Church work for Catholic Charities. Much of the good that is done is cancelled out by the bad. Also, in 20 years, Boston CC placed 13 children with homosexual couples.


17 posted on 03/16/2006 9:15:15 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate
I assume you are not a Catholic if you think that a Catholic charity should provide charitable services primarily to Catholics.

That was just one of the factors used in the San Francisco case to determine that Catholic Charities is not a religious organization. Even though Catholics are expected to be charitable to others regardless of their religion, it should definitely be done in the context of Catholic doctrine and Catholic moral teachings. A person who is treated in a Catholic hospital should know that he/she is in a Catholic hospital, for example. This means a crucifix in every patient's room, constant presence of clergy and people from Catholic orders, etc.

18 posted on 03/16/2006 9:26:44 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

First of all, I volunteered hundereds of hours for a Catholic children's hospital in St. Louis a few years ago. They have crucifixes in every patient room and a strong presence of clergy.

That hospital is not alone. (It is an SSM hospital, for those interested.) The majority of the hospitals in that area are Catholic and all of them live up to their name, serving "in the context of Catholic doctrine and Catholic moral teachings."

Secondly, to everyone who is quick to chastize Catholic Charities in general, I would like to share a personal story. My father is a (not-so-)small business owner, and several years ago, Catholic Charities contacted him to ask if he would offer jobs to Albanian and Iraqi refugees who were in the process of becoming citizens. My father accepted and, since then, has maintained a relationship with the extended families of those original, legal immigrants. This is just one small example, but I think it hits right at the core of what Catholic Charities is about. They facilitated a connection between a Catholic employer and immigrants looking to become true Americans, as my great-grandparents and grandparents did not so long ago.


19 posted on 03/16/2006 10:49:11 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Forget the financial connection between the state and Mass. Cath. Charities.
The reason Catholic Charities can't continue providing adoption services in Massachusetts, even without state or federal funding, without violating God's Law, is because the state licenses all adoption agencies and won't license CC because of its principled and correct stance.
The key sentence in Jacoby's story is this one:
"The church's request for a conscience clause should have been unobjectionable, at least to anyone whose priority is rescuing kids from foster care. Those who spurned that request out of hand must believe that adoption is designed primarily for the benefit of adults, not children. The end of Catholic Charities' involvement in adoption may suit the Human Rights Campaign. But it can only hurt the interests of the damaged and vulnerable children for whom Catholic Charities has long been a source of hope."

worth repeating so you never forget it:
"Those who spurned that request out of hand must believe that adoption is designed primarily for the benefit of adults, not children."


20 posted on 03/16/2006 10:55:38 AM PST by jjmcgo (Patriarch of the Occident since March 1, 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

Please excuse the two typos in the last reply (hundreds and chastise). I was typing too quickly for my own good...


21 posted on 03/16/2006 10:57:23 AM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate
Please understand something here . . . I'm not trying to make a blanket indictment of all organizations related to Catholic Charities. I'm sure these organizations do a lot of good work, and the case you cited involving your father is a good example of this.

However, I will post this link here to a list of what Catholic Charities USA describes as their "Legislative Priorities" . . . all of which involve lobbying government on behalf of various left-wing causes that have absolutely nothing to do with charity in any Christian sense.

2006 Legislative Priorities

Just read through that list (I've highlighted some of the real winners) . . . "Support full funding for the Section 8, Section 202, and other affordable housing programs," "Preserve the targeting of Section 8 vouchers to extremely low-income households," "Support increased funding for McKinney homeless assistance programs," "Support improvements in the TANF program to reduce child poverty; improve employability of recipients; ensure quality, affordable child care; provide adequate income for families; and support marriage and family life," "Support immigration reforms to help undocumented workers to adjust to legal status," "Support restoration of federal benefits to legal immigrants," "Support access to higher education to children of undocumented immigrants," "Promote just and fair budget and tax policies to provide adequate resources for federal investments in housing, health care, and social services for lower-income households, "Protect and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and other tax policies that benefit low-income households," "Preserve the Medicaid entitlement and benefits for low-income individuals," "Support increased access to affordable health insurance coverage for the uninsured and underinsured," "Support legislation to facilitate enrollment of children in Medicaid and SCHIP," "Support and preserve funding for food stamps and child nutrition programs," "Support labor law, wage and hour reforms and better enforcement of current laws for agricultural workers," "Support reforms of laws regarding child agricultural workers," "Support legislation to remove barriers that prevent former prisoners from accessing housing, employment, educational and job training, and services needed to successfully reenter society," "Support improvements to and reauthorization of the Head Start Program," "Support incentives to states to improve quality of subsidized child care," "Support increased access to child care for children whose parents work non-traditional hours," etc.

With all due respect, this is not a charitable organization . . . it is a den of Marxism that has no business using the word "Catholic" in its name.

22 posted on 03/16/2006 11:34:57 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: serendipity_kate

I think that a lot of the ensuing discussion has been a bit off topic. The bottom line is that Catholic Charities should not be forced to place children with homosexual couples. What is of priority are the children, and each adoption agency has its own methods by which is determines what home will be the best for a child. The government was saying that CC had to place children in homosexual arrangements, which a Catholic organization (no matter how nominally Catholic) should not be able to do, in "good conscience." Hence the shutdown. It's not discrimination for CC to make a principled case for not placing children with homosexual couples, because as the article points out, they were already referring same-sex couples interested in adoption to other agencies. Whether or not CC is a bona fide Catholic, "Rome is Home" organization is more of a moot point because the real issue is why should the government be FORCING them to give children to homosexual couples, SO LONG as the children were already getting placed? Isn't the point of the process that children get placed? As Jacoby points out, it's not about the adults, it's about the children. But somehow in all this uproar about whether or not CC is a "true" Catholic organization or not, we've lost the real tragedy of this - that there is one less organization in Boston that is working hard to provide children with what all children should have: a loving home and family that wants them.

It's a great article because it makes a great point: that in the name of "nondiscrimination" extremely intolerant views are being imposed on an organization.


23 posted on 03/16/2006 12:46:29 PM PST by dson7_ck1249
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dson7_ck1249

Well said. And thanks for getting us back to the topic.


24 posted on 03/16/2006 12:49:54 PM PST by serendipity_kate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson