You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays
2006-03-11
The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents. The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality. "The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work. But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.

The state's four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral. Eight members of Catholic Charities board later stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.
Sounds like it's time for them to re-create the orphanage. Orphanages were always supplemental to adoption, and would still provide a safe, nuturing, and supportive environment in the absence of acceptable adoptive parents. They represent the acceptance of the idea that there will always be more children than good adults to take care of them.

When the state starts deciding a church's theology, you're in just as much trouble as you'd be in if the theologians were deciding what the state can do. It's the reverse of South Waziristan or Iran, but neither condition is a good thing.
This is a real shame, because Catholic Charities has been a good force for getting difficult-to-place children placed in that state. CC isn't always on the good side in adoption/foster disputes, but getting older and special needs children placed is something they do well. The state is gonna miss them when they pull out, and pull out they will. On the other hand, the state has a law to enforce. Both sides, regretably, are going to take what each thinks is the correct decision.

As an aside, I would not want to see orphanages return. They were, for the most part, ghastly places and ruined a lot of kids. Every child needs a home.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#6  why do people who want to help, have to help everyone equally? If I wanted to set up a private charity that only helps black children or Muslim children, or blind children - that may not be the best thing, but is a good thing for the children I do help. It is more than would be available if I didn't help. Once again the idea of immaculate purity denies good at the expense of perfection.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-11 23:55  

#5  Nope. They have to keep Ontario and Quebec. We'll consider some royalty stream from the Alberta oil sands, though - but only if they pay for beefing up security at the border in exchange.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-11 10:03  

#4  Trade you Massachusetts for Alberta and Saskatchewan.

They'd probably want to throw in Ontario and Quebec and keep Alberta.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-11 09:29  

#3  The ‘PuritanismÂ’ of modern Political Correctness has returned to the Bay Colony.

While they set out to escape the intolerance of Church of England, the Puritans themselves were as intolerant of other beliefs sending the likes of Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson out of their domain. Now modern secular ‘Puritanism’ is amok. Maybe it’s time for a return to Crown government as well. Trade you Massachusetts for Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Posted by: Whomorong Hupoluth2201   2006-03-11 09:23  

#2  This is a good thing, in the long term.

Massachusetts has passed a stupid law, as governments frequently do. It has asked part of society to compromise its principles, in essence for money and souls. That part of society has declined the deal.

Good for them. On the one hand, when religious groups fail to accept the world as it is, we get things fit only for angels or Taliban. However, many of the problems in the world occur when we compromise our principles too much. CC has chosen to stand for principle at a good place. It is well rid of the board members who resigned.

Now it is for the Commonwealth to pick up the slack its intolerance created. Let's hope there's lots of gay couples who want children out there.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-11 08:31  

#1  The people who made that law were high on crack. Not only a lebian or gay couple provides a doubous role model (remember that it is in society's interest that people be heteropsexual and have children) but in the case of gays, well men are nuts (as an aside I am one), more prone to violence and madness. That is statistics. And tehre is athe possibility of rape. I don't like the idea of children being educated by a man (except in the case of widower for his biological children) when there is no woman around to, err.., watch him. And here we have two men, the risk is multiplied by two.

I propose that whenever there is an "accident" in these adoptions (ie child raped or killed) one of the legislators who pushed the law is sentenced to death.
Posted by: JFM   2006-03-11 04:28  

00:00