Religious Adoption Agency Will Shut Down Instead of Letting Gay Couples Adopt

Started by Pointless Digression, May 29, 2011, 07:14:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pointless Digression

The great state of Illinois will begin allowing civil unions on Wednesday. Because separate but equal institutions is an idea that's worked out so well for us before [/sarcasm]. But I digress.

Catholic Charities of Rockford, Illinois is so opposed to being forced to place foster children in the homes of gay couples (PDF), that it’s going to end its adoption services altogether:

Quote
In Rockford, the decision could displace about 350 foster children served by Catholic Charities and put 58 employees out of work.


Quote
Without a specific provision protecting religious agencies, church officials said, the agency can’t risk losing state contracts or facing lawsuits if it turns away gay couples or others in civil unions. State funds make up about half of Catholic Charities of Rockford’s $7.5 million operating budget.

“While we understand leaving this work will be very painful for our client families, employees, volunteers, donors and prayerful supporters, we can no longer contract with the state of Illinois whose laws would force us to participate in activity offensive to the moral teachings of the church — teachings which compel us to do this work in the first place,” said Frank Vonch, director of social services for the Diocese of Rockford, which includes Kane and McHenry counties.

Emphasis added by Pointless Digression

Did you manage to wrap your head around the part I bolded? The Catholic Church is the same organization that sheltered and protected and transferred child rapists for decades now is now whining about the church taking moral offense. And the thing that's so offensive to them that they're going to pick up all their toys and go home, rather than play? Loving gay couples adopting children. Their anti-gay bigotry is so powerful that they'd rather let children suffer (more) than to even consider placing them with "TEH GAYS!"

There has to be something more than this. I can't possibly understand their logic in another way than: When a child needs a loving father or mother more than anything, but you might have to give them two mothers or two fathers, better not put them with anybody.

To be fair, this is not just Catholics. The evangelical Christian group Focus on the FamilyPatriarchy, which has made getting children adopted the subject of their "talking points", also seems to hate the idea of gay couples adopting.

Still, the Catholic Church is consistent in its opposition to homosexuality, so I guess it makes a kind of sense to fight over this particular point. As I understand it, the Church is very strict about the married lives of people. Homosexual acts are sins but it's also a sin to bear a child out of wedlock, it's a sin to divorce, it's a sin to divorce and then remarry. [whispered aside]I think non-Catholics also borderline sin every day.[/whispered aside] So I can get discriminating against homosexuals, because I'm sure they also take moral offense at single parents adopting, divorced parents adopting, divorced-then-remarried parents adopting, and non-Catholics adopting. I'm sure they would have shut down rather than place children in any of these unsuitable homes.

Yeah, you know where this is going.

Quote
“We believe that children are best served by being in the home of a married couple or a single individual,” [Catholic Conference of Illinois executive director Robert Gilligan] explained. “That’s not a radical notion.”

He added that homes provided by married couples or single, committed individuals “is in the best interest of the child and quite frankly, I think society should recognize that that’s in the best interest of the child.”

Let's sum up Married non-Catholics; cool. Single people; cool. Gays - HELL NO!

Seriously, Illinois? Just give the money Catholic Charities is apparently too good for to a secular, non-discriminatory agency and get these jokers loose.
         

Belle33

This is good news. 

If it results in more funding for a charities that focus on helping children find homes without the influence of the Catholic (or other) church, I say - whooray!  I prefer public funds not be channeled to organizations that would practice discrimination at the expense of the people they are supposed to help.     

Kudos to this organization for recognizing their bigotry.  Perhaps they will not have more time on their hands to consider what Jesus would do.  Methinks he would love all his fathers' children, and would not question his fathers' decision to create such a gloriously diverse flock.

Ons/Offs, Stories & Poems, Currently Not Available for RP

Noelle

As a private institution, they have full rights to decide who they serve, but I honestly don't think the damage will be that great if they decide not to adopt out to gay couples, given that not only are gays a minority to begin with, but gay couples who choose to marry are an even smaller percentage. That's not to say that what they're doing is right or good, but the Church isn't shy about their views on homosexuality, so this shouldn't come as a big shock to anyone who's been alive longer than about a week or so.

Guess what I'm saying is that while I disagree with their decision, it's certainly their right to pick and choose the demographics they prefer, so long as federal tax dollars aren't being funneled in to support them in that endeavor.

Foxy DeVille

Quote from: Noelle on May 29, 2011, 12:19:22 PMGuess what I'm saying is that while I disagree with their decision, it's certainly their right to pick and choose the demographics they prefer, so long as federal tax dollars aren't being funneled in to support them in that endeavor.

Well, that actually is sorta the real truth to the matter. Rockford isn't being "forced" to allow gay couples to adopt, they just can't receive state funding unless they do. If they were privately funded, then they could pick and choose. But since they want taxpayer dollar, some of which would come from gay residents in a wee bit of irony, then they have to follow the law.

Oniya

You know, I bet if the employees, volunteers, donors and client families find this so painful, the could probably organize and either form a new, non-secular agency or distribute their abilities to the agencies that are going to be picking up the slack.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Noelle

Quote from: Foxy Oni on May 29, 2011, 12:45:29 PM
Well, that actually is sorta the real truth to the matter. Rockford isn't being "forced" to allow gay couples to adopt, they just can't receive state funding unless they do. If they were privately funded, then they could pick and choose. But since they want taxpayer dollar, some of which would come from gay residents in a wee bit of irony, then they have to follow the law.

It's dubious to me as to why they would even receive federal funding in the first place, given they're blatantly a Catholic charity :P It's just too bad that their selective bigotry had to come at the expense of peoples' jobs and the possible future of ~300 kids. If you ask me, it just looks all the worse for the Church in the end, though I'm sure not everyone sees it the same way.

Pointless Digression

Quote from: Noelle on May 29, 2011, 01:11:55 PM
It's dubious to me as to why they would even receive federal funding in the first place, given they're blatantly a Catholic charity :P

State funding, not federal. And they receive the funding because the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services contracts out the adoption placement services to places like Catholic Charities.
         

Noelle

My mistake. It still seems sigh-worthy to me that any part of the government is contracting out to religious organizations, but I guess it's not really that shocking, what with the Salvation Army and all.

Wyrd

Maybe Catholics shouldn't be aloud to adopt. :/  So this catholic charity would rather put  350 foster children and  58 employees on their Ass's rather then adopt to people who would most likely be loving parents? They must be doing the lords work!
Ragtime Dandies!

Pumpkin Seeds

The problem people have with this issue makes little sense to me.  This is a Catholic organization, a group that has had a consistent stance on homosexuality and gay marriage.  Such view points from this group are widely known and understood.  To pass a law or make a policy that would require them to go against their teachings should lead to their unwillingness to continue operation.  They are committed to their view point on this matter and willing to stand by their principles.  To criticize them for doing something immoral in order to explain why they should do something else immoral makes little logical sense.  The people are going to stand by what they preach, so why jump on them for that?

While people are busy crying that this is a tragedy for the children because the charity might close shop, why not also look at the legislators.  As Noelle said the amount of gay couples that are married will be quite small and an even smaller number that would seek or qualify for adoption.  So is it not also an equal tragedy that lawmakers would put these children’s future in jeopardy by forcing people to adopt to gay couples.  They can simply make the matter legal, but allow the adoption agency its own policies.  Honestly, if you are a gay couple going to adopt from a Catholic Charity then there has to be some expectation that they view your lifestyle in a poor light.

Pointless Digression

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 30, 2011, 05:56:57 AM
The problem people have with this issue makes little sense to me.  This is a Catholic organization, a group that has had a consistent stance on homosexuality and gay marriage.

As I mentioned in the original post, the Catholic Church also has strong opinions against divorce, yet will adopt children to divorced or remarried people. But not a gay couple. The Catholic Church also has a problem with single parents, especially unwed mothers. But this organization will adopt to single parents. Just not a gay couple.
         

Belle33

I certainly don't object Catholics forming charities.  I believe it's part of their mandate as Christians to help those in need.  And I have no problem them following morals and principles as they see fit as they those provide services.  But, if public funds are used in the process, then I definitely would object to them practicing discrimination.  It clearly denies certain citizens access to, essentially, public services. 

They should just divert the funds to organizations that would not discriminate, and move on.  I still see their closing as a positive.

Ons/Offs, Stories & Poems, Currently Not Available for RP

Brandon

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 30, 2011, 07:25:27 AM
As I mentioned in the original post, the Catholic Church also has strong opinions against divorce, yet will adopt children to divorced or remarried people. But not a gay couple. The Catholic Church also has a problem with single parents, especially unwed mothers. But this organization will adopt to single parents. Just not a gay couple.

It would be nice if you actually tried to understand the other side but as is reading this thread has been metaphorically speaking like getting reconstructive dental surgery with a Kyak paddle. Since the creation of this thread I have felt an utter disgust at how it was originally posted. The amount of utterly asanine rhetoric astounds me and the most worrying part is the return of the same kind of demonizing attitude that I thought Elliquiy had successfully murdered last year with no staff in sight. Yet here we are again

First off, the catholic church has a long and widely understood history that it believes the act of homosexuality is a sin not the person. Claiming otherwise is factually incorrect. It is not nor has it ever been about bigotry. What it is about is at its core a disagreement of opinion. To them gay sex is a sin, end of story but the act of a couple forming is not a sin but is commiting to sin. It is a symbol of reprehensible behavoir that will condemn those souls to hell for all eternity.

Try to actually stop and think about that from their point of view before you come around here shouting about them being bigots.
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Noelle

Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

—Synonyms
1.  narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.


While it can be said for certain that not all Catholics act with total intolerance towards gays, refusing to serve gays is what I would say is "stubborn and complete intolerance", especially withinin the synonym discrimination.

HairyHeretic

No one is likely to convince anyone of anything by using inflammatory language and snide remarks. We're all supposed to be adults here. We should be intelligent enough to realise that the topics that come up here are going to provoke strong responses by their very nature. They don't need additional help in that regard.

If you're going to try and put a particular point of view forward, or rebut one, then do it in a civil manner.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Brandon

As a group there is no such thing as total intolerance toward anyone in the catholic church. Think about what I noted earlier as to their belief that the act of gay sex is a sin. There is a lot of written and unwriten rules that point out that hating a person for their sins is completely against doctrine. There would not be any attempts to try and turn gays away from a "sinful" lifestyle if they were intolerant of the person.

As for being intolerant of the act yes and no. I do have some examples that run contrary to the norm but they revolve around the sex abuse scandals and as everyone knows I have sworn not to discuss them. I will leave you to look into that yourself and come to your own conclusions. If you still disagree then I would say we will have to agree to disagree and drop it from there. However his claims of bigotry clearly werent talking about the act either

As individuals, thats another thing entirely but again we arent talking about individuals were talking about a group
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Noelle

One could argue that refusing to adopt children out to gay couples without first running a background check as to whether or not they're acting on that impulse (which you say is what they actually have a problem with) is more indicative of bigotry.

Sabby

Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2011, 09:24:51 AM
First off, the catholic church has a long and widely understood history that it believes the act of homosexuality is a sin not the person. Claiming otherwise is factually incorrect. It is not nor has it ever been about bigotry. What it is about is at its core a disagreement of opinion. To them gay sex is a sin, end of story but the act of a couple forming is not a sin but is commiting to sin. It is a symbol of reprehensible behavoir that will condemn those souls to hell for all eternity.

To quote Mass Effects wise crippled lad, "That is the official story. And no one ever believes the official story"

Even in saying I think that theres still some bigotry behind the public face there (I actually do agree that they have a right to exercise that part of their theology when operating off of their own money) I'm not sure what your trying to say here... one person says "They won't adopt to gays, but unwed mums and cheaters are sinners to and they'll adopt to them" and your response seemed to be "Nah uh, gays are totally sinners". I know you didn't word it like that, but if you were trying to point out why the gays and unwed mums and divorced mums point was inaccurate, then you might need another crack at it man. How is the Sin of being a same sex lover worse then the Sin of making a kid and then skipping town to raise that kid without the other parent around?

Pumpkin Seeds

I am not sure where this notion of total intolerance comes from.  According to the Catholic Church the act of same-sex intercourse is a sin.  The position of wanting that act is not itself a sin and to live with that burden is considered a trial by many.  Living in that sin means a continual disregard for the teachings of God and a complete abandonment of the life that Christ wants people to lead.  Essentially the homosexual couple is making an active and willful choice to live in sin.  That means the couple will commit to an ongoing existence of sinful acts without remorse.  They are not asking for forgiveness for their act as they intend to continue the act.

Someone who cheats, commits adultery and so on can be forgiven is they so desire.  The act was, in theory, a one time lapse and weakness that can be forgive through confession.  Also, keep in mind that there are a multitude of reasons for a woman to be a single mother aside from “skipping” town with the child. 

I’m sure the Charity follows the appropriate background checks and evaluations to ensure the child is placed with a healthy parents or parents.

Sabby


ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 30, 2011, 05:56:57 AM
The problem people have with this issue makes little sense to me.  This is a Catholic organization, a group that has had a consistent stance on homosexuality and gay marriage.  Such view points from this group are widely known and understood.  To pass a law or make a policy that would require them to go against their teachings should lead to their unwillingness to continue operation.  They are committed to their view point on this matter and willing to stand by their principles.  To criticize them for doing something immoral in order to explain why they should do something else immoral makes little logical sense.  The people are going to stand by what they preach, so why jump on them for that?

While people are busy crying that this is a tragedy for the children because the charity might close shop, why not also look at the legislators.  As Noelle said the amount of gay couples that are married will be quite small and an even smaller number that would seek or qualify for adoption.  So is it not also an equal tragedy that lawmakers would put these children’s future in jeopardy by forcing people to adopt to gay couples.  They can simply make the matter legal, but allow the adoption agency its own policies.  Honestly, if you are a gay couple going to adopt from a Catholic Charity then there has to be some expectation that they view your lifestyle in a poor light.

I'm with her on this one.  Churches, by and large, including the Roman Catholic, have had a longstanding stance against homosexuality and gay marriages.  Now, I'm not privy to the numbers, but the last article said that Illinois has a long tradition of seeking help from faith-based groups like the RCC.  Plus, both articles made it sound like the state legislature is possibly working on a proviso that would allow groups to, as Pumpkin said, have their own policies about adopting to gay couples - legal but not required, so to speak.

In a single angle, though, the acts of the Church should be applauded - and before people start jumping on me, hear me out.  The fact that they have the conviction to say "No, we've got a deeply held belief about homosexuality and gay marriage, and we're not going to compromise on it, even if it means discontinuing adoption."  That sort of act isn't very nice, I know, but they should be commended for the fact that they're willing to stand up for what they believe in rather than compromise.

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 30, 2011, 07:25:27 AM
As I mentioned in the original post, the Catholic Church also has strong opinions against divorce, yet will adopt children to divorced or remarried people. But not a gay couple. The Catholic Church also has a problem with single parents, especially unwed mothers. But this organization will adopt to single parents. Just not a gay couple.

That part comes in the fact that homosexuality being a sin is rooted within the Bible - Old and New Testaments.  I don't recall anywhere where it says being a single parent is a sin - that's more Catholic tradition rather than Biblical principle - and certain instances of divorce aren't sins, either.

@Sabby: Seems like Pumpkin already beat me to the answer, but I will add this - homosexuality, deadbeat parenting, cheating, and most cases of divorce are all sins equal to the eyes of God in the Bible.  So, there's not really a 'worse' sin.  The idea of different grades of sins is pure Catholic tradition, and certainly not based on Biblical principle, as is the similar Church of Mormon belief.  It does not say anywhere in the Bible that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven.  But, as Pumpkin pointed out, repeated instances signifies a deliberate defiance of God's teachings and so on.

Noelle

The idea of 'living in sin' in regards to homosexuality seems a bit of a lame excuse to me. You can't undo a divorce, you live with that always. Are they monitoring in the long-term for parents who cheat on their spouse? Do they take the child away if the couple gets a divorce? What if it's their second divorce? Surely the parents are going to lie at some point in the future -- multiple times, in fact; what are they doing for those people since they are obviously unapologetic? And if they take the Lord's name in vain a few times after they adopt? In the same vein that homosexuality was called an abomination, we also see that God's not a fan of polyester, shrimp, or tattoos. How are they tackling these pressing issues, and is it with the same fervor that they oppose homosexuality?

I'm not saying they don't have a right to discriminate as they see fit -- if they want to exclude Mexicans and people who are left-handed, by all means, it's their exclusive club and they don't have to invite me, but the arguments that their special stance on homosexuality isn't bigotry...well, it's not terribly convincing.

Sabby

^This. Plus they operate with other peoples money. The tax paying citizens that help them open their doors have obviously spoken up for gay rights since laws are changing there, so these guys have three options. Accommodate for their cheque payers, stop accepting the check and somehow operate on other funding, or shut down. They seem to be choosing the last option, and I do have to give them kudos for sticking to their ways even in the face of total financial ruining. In another situation, I would find that pretty amazing.

Jude

If you follow the same logic that the Catholic Church uses towards homosexuals, then I guess the United States Government doesn't have anything against rapists, murderers, and pedophiles.  "We just punish the behavior, those individuals shouldn't feel discouraged from being a rapist, a murderer, or a pedophile."

The whole notion of behavioral correction through operant conditioning is changing someone by associating the behavior that you want to eliminate with negative outcomes.  Associating homosexuality with sin is not some harmless difference of opinion; it's an attempt at using the concept of sin to shame people away from being homosexual.

Despite the fact that authority figures in Catholic Institutions repeatedly show corruption and intolerance, this isn't a good measure for Catholics themselves (at least in the United States):  the average Catholic in the US is more progressive on social issues such as gay rights than the average protestant.  As such, there is a difference between attacking entrenched, abusing institutions of power and the practitioners of the faith who are ahead of the curve.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Jude on May 30, 2011, 01:07:18 PM
If you follow the same logic that the Catholic Church uses towards homosexuals, then I guess the United States Government doesn't have anything against rapists, murderers, and pedophiles.  "We just punish the behavior, those individuals shouldn't feel discouraged from being a rapist, a murderer, or a pedophile."

With what we see today, I think that that last statement is particularly obvious, don't you?  :P  After all, there is NAMBLA...

I kid (to a degree), but in all seriousness, the US Government is the authority of the land, whereas the Catholic Church is not.  Saying that because they have the same purpose (telling people how to live their lives), they have to operate under the same lines of logic isn't right.  It'd be like saying that the NSA and CIA have to operate under the same lines of logic as the FBI or the Armed Forces, since they're all organizations that protect our freedom and our country, when the truth is is that while they've got the same overall purpose, they approach it in very different ways, and thus need to follow different paths.

Quote from: Jude on May 30, 2011, 01:07:18 PM
The whole notion of behavioral correction through operant conditioning is changing someone by associating the behavior that you want to eliminate with negative outcomes.  Associating homosexuality with sin is not some harmless difference of opinion; it's an attempt at using the concept of sin to shame people away from being homosexual.

And yet, for a long time, it worked - people hid in the closet for years about being gay, especially if they were Christian.  Whereas the prison system we've got today doesn't work at all at rehabilitation or at prevention - felons get released back out onto the street and go right back into crime, for one of two reasons IMO.

1: They know that there's no 'normal' job that will hire them.  Having a felony conviction on your background check is a death sentence to most forms of employment, particularly if it's drugs, rape, or murder.

2: There's too much money involved.  After all, why go and get a job flipping burgers at seven dollars an hour when you can sell drugs on the street for dozens if not hundreds of dollars a pop, and all you have to do is avoid the authorities?

The ultimate problem is that there really isn't anything, secular or religious, that seems to consistently work these days to promote a well-adjusted and moral society.  And in that sense, both the RCC and the USG are in trouble.

Trieste

I think the sticking point here for me is that the place, from what I gather, is receiving funds from the state. This is nothing new as far as state operations, I'm led to believe, and that's fine. But when an organization is receiving taxpayer funds, then the same services should go to all qualifying tax payers. This includes gays.

If you want to be able to operate based on your moral or religious code, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be taking public monies to do it. Especially not to the tune of 3.5 million dollars. If this organization were funded completely by private donors, then it would still be reprehensible to me, but not necessarily objectionable to the taxpayers.

Will

Quote from: Trieste on May 30, 2011, 01:39:24 PM
I think the sticking point here for me is that the place, from what I gather, is receiving funds from the state. This is nothing new as far as state operations, I'm led to believe, and that's fine. But when an organization is receiving taxpayer funds, then the same services should go to all qualifying tax payers. This includes gays.

If you want to be able to operate based on your moral or religious code, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be taking public monies to do it. Especially not to the tune of 3.5 million dollars. If this organization were funded completely by private donors, then it would still be reprehensible to me, but not necessarily objectionable to the taxpayers.

I am in total agreement with this.  I think this turn of events will actually be a good thing, in the long term, because the money can now (hopefully) go to an organization not motivated by an exclusionary theological doctrine. 
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Brandon

Quote from: Noelle on May 30, 2011, 10:39:55 AM
One could argue that refusing to adopt children out to gay couples without first running a background check as to whether or not they're acting on that impulse (which you say is what they actually have a problem with) is more indicative of bigotry.

I could also argue that United states culture prevents such a thing from taking place while still helping these children find a home. Sit down and think about it, if you and your husband/girlfriend were to go in to try and adopt a kid and you were asked questions relating to your sex life how would you feel? Our culture is drowning in sexual innuendo and thought but the actual approach of it is almost always taboo with the exception of looking for sex with the person. Even then its usually taboo to just come out with it rather then dance around the issue for days/weeks/months (thats more a rant about dating and sex though)

Quote from: Noelle on May 30, 2011, 12:50:20 PM
The idea of 'living in sin' in regards to homosexuality seems a bit of a lame excuse to me. You can't undo a divorce, you live with that always. Are they monitoring in the long-term for parents who cheat on their spouse? Do they take the child away if the couple gets a divorce? What if it's their second divorce? Surely the parents are going to lie at some point in the future -- multiple times, in fact; what are they doing for those people since they are obviously unapologetic? And if they take the Lord's name in vain a few times after they adopt? In the same vein that homosexuality was called an abomination, we also see that God's not a fan of polyester, shrimp, or tattoos. How are they tackling these pressing issues, and is it with the same fervor that they oppose homosexuality?

I'm not saying they don't have a right to discriminate as they see fit -- if they want to exclude Mexicans and people who are left-handed, by all means, it's their exclusive club and they don't have to invite me, but the arguments that their special stance on homosexuality isn't bigotry...well, it's not terribly convincing.

Unfortunately I am not qualified to answer these questions and the only ones who might be are people in the catholic heirarchy at the Bishop and higher levels (it is possible that your average priest might be able to answer them but I have my doubts). The first problem is approaching the issue with this kind of hostility will immediately put them on the defensive since it is often the prelude to some kind of social attack against their beliefs. The second problem is you're bible thumping here and as I have said many many many times bible thumping is nothing but a trap. As a culture all churches are far more complex then their doctrines. So much so that social observation of the group as a whole is pretty much impossible or anyone not a part of it. I cant be sure but my instincts tell me that this particular issue has been decided from a mix of holy text, history, tradition, and reflection

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Noelle

Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2011, 05:31:37 PM
I could also argue that United states culture prevents such a thing from taking place while still helping these children find a home. Sit down and think about it, if you and your husband/girlfriend were to go in to try and adopt a kid and you were asked questions relating to your sex life how would you feel? Our culture is drowning in sexual innuendo and thought but the actual approach of it is almost always taboo with the exception of looking for sex with the person. Even then its usually taboo to just come out with it rather then dance around the issue for days/weeks/months (thats more a rant about dating and sex though)

Oh, okay...Sooooo. It's okay for the Church to get involved with gay people's sex lives and dictate that they can't put it up each other's ass and whatnot, but asking me about my sex life is drastically more uncomfortable and that should be protected.

QuoteUnfortunately I am not qualified to answer these questions and the only ones who might be are people in the catholic heirarchy at the Bishop and higher levels (it is possible that your average priest might be able to answer them but I have my doubts). The first problem is approaching the issue with this kind of hostility will immediately put them on the defensive since it is often the prelude to some kind of social attack against their beliefs.

Questioning the inconsistencies of religion is not necessarily hostile. If you'd like to present yourself as the moral authority and enjoy privileged status in your country and then fail to live up to it, I'd expect you should be able to take some questions about your modus operandi, but I could be wrong about that.

QuoteThe second problem is you're bible thumping here and as I have said many many many times bible thumping is nothing but a trap. As a culture all churches are far more complex then their doctrines. So much so that social observation of the group as a whole is pretty much impossible or anyone not a part of it. I cant be sure but my instincts tell me that this particular issue has been decided from a mix of holy text, history, tradition, and reflection

Let me just go back a few posts where you were defending the Catholic church's traditional stance on homosexuality. Those stances are corroborated from from the Bible, Brandon. I am making references to the same book you are. It's not Bible-thumping, it's you cherry picking what is and isn't acceptable to bring up. You're using special pleading and it's not terribly convincing. If you're not qualified to answer my questions, then I'm not sure why you feel qualified to explain the intricacies of how there are so many different churches using so many different doctrines that I can't possibly classify them or make a general statement such as their interest in a holy book central to the religion.

Foxy DeVille

Meh, I can't really applaud CCR for sticking to their guns about their beliefs because in their press release they say the state is trying to define their religious teaching. That's disingenuous.  The state of Illinois isn't saying what they can or can not believe in or teach. It just says the agency can not discriminate against any legally recognized couple and still receive state funding. Freedom of religion doesn't include the right to get a big fat check from the government.  Besides, if this agency was anything like the Catholic agency my dad and stepmom used to adopt my sister, they're hitting up adoptive parents for ten grand or more to just play go-between between them and the biological mother. That's what they do, they don't run orphanages staffed by kindly nuns. Maybe also file some paperwork any lawyer can handle for a couple hundred bucks tops. So between that, money from the church itself, and outside donations they want even more money from the government. I gotta call shenanigans. I'm thinking there are some fat salaries involved and this "shutdown" is a plea for more money from other sources to keep the gravy train running. Cynical, maybe. But I can't really imagine what they need so much money for to play middlemen in a fairly simple legal process.

Brandon

Let me be clear on something. I am here to try and educate people with legitimate questions and I do not have all the answers. I have never pretended to have all the answers but I am trying to field questions and give as informed answers as I can. I am not here to be verbally berrated with accusations and snide remarks while whispering "thank you ma'am may I have another"

I said you were bible thumping because you took on the usual stance of everything in the bible must be followed if one thing is. That is false and it has been false since the birth of the catholic church, maybe even before that. The difference between your bible thumping and my own comments regarding the bible is I said from the start that there was more to it then just a few lines in the bible and included both written and unwritten rules of catholic doctrine.

If I misunderstood your position then ok, you can clarify it but I will not be accused of cherry picking while trying to explain someone else's point of view. I do not agree with them when it comes to gays but I do understand where they are coming from

To be sure I say this, its not questioning that is the problem. Its your approach thats the problem. I said that from the start



Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Anjasa

I think this is very sad, and a very difficult thing for the children caught in the middle.

Noelle

Something tells me that changing my tone to your liking probably wouldn't suddenly make you stop writing my points off and demanding that I listen to you in return, but that's okay. Let's move on to another subject.

The Catholic Catechism, considered the official teaching text of the Catholic Church has this to say about homosexuals:

Quote2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

(Emphasis mine.)

Am I on the right track here? I figured a document marked as an official Catholic authoritative document might have some bearing, but if the Bible can be tossed aside, I suppose this is fair game, too. I'm open to correction, of course.

If you'd like to make the "living in sin" argument, I'd just like to pre-emptively ask how many single gay parents (who presumably wouldn't be engaging in homosexual behavior...since, you know, they're single) they've adopted out to.

I digress:

Quote1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

So what I get is that saying bad things about God, lying under oath, and adultery is never okay, and yet this organization is presumably not screening for any of those three. I'd say "gravely illicit" is pretty serious business.

Aaaand, for the finale:

Quote2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I'm not really sure how to say this gently, but calling for chastity hasn't really been working out for them in the last decade or two.

Trieste

Noelle, I think probably it's not only unwise, but off topic to tackle the subject of Catholicism as a whole. This is one specific adoption agency, in one specific instance. It might be less aggravating to address that.

Your arguments with Brandon have been continually futile and I can only guess at the reason why they continue if they aggravate you so much. ^^ My money is on masochism. However, if you want to continue with Brandon specifically, might I suggest a dialogue?

Brandon

Quote from: Trieste on May 30, 2011, 06:53:02 PM
Noelle, I think probably it's not only unwise, but off topic to tackle the subject of Catholicism as a whole. This is one specific adoption agency, in one specific instance. It might be less aggravating to address that.

Your arguments with Brandon have been continually futile and I can only guess at the reason why they continue if they aggravate you so much. ^^ My money is on masochism. However, if you want to continue with Brandon specifically, might I suggest a dialogue?

Unfortunately thats an idea that I have to veto. I find her personal behavoir abhorrent most of the time because her posts are often riddled with personal attacks and what seems to be a "Gotcha!" mentality. I often try to give her time to edit those attacks out as a personal courtesy before I hit the report button but as for a one on one dialogue, no. There isnt a chance in hell of that happening

That said, i will digress myself. There were originally two topics in this thread. The obvious one being the church's withdrawl and other more sinsister one being the accusation of bigotry. Ive said my peace on the latter and hope that people choose their words more wisely next time

As to the former, I believe the church is well within its legal rights to do what it did and I commend them for standing by their beliefs. I just wish, as Im sure they do, that it didnt need to come to this outcome
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Noelle

I don't think that was your moment to step in and bring your personal issues with me out in the open.

Brandon

Just because I dont like you doesnt mean that I think you are wrong by virtue of being you. When I think you're wrong its because youre just wrong
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Noelle


Brandon

Actually no, I need to take that back. It is not you as a person but the behavoir that I have a problem with. Calling me ignorant, telling my Im white knighting, telling me Im horrible for defending a point of view that is not my own. Thats what I have a problem with. The fact is I dont know who you are outside this forum, weve never talked and never played together and it is unfair of me to asscoiate behavoir with a person

Im sorry for acting like such a jerk there
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Trieste

I see that subtlety has failed. Ahem.

Stop bickering and stay on topic. If you wish to continue taking potshots at each other, do it in PM and stop hijacking threads.

Thank you.




Moving along (and I do hope we can move along, here), I noticed in the press release from the OP that the church appears to be condemning both married (or civil unionized, whatevs) same sex couples and "unmarried cohabitation between couples of the same sex", so it would be interesting to see what their record is for placing their charges in just these situations.

Mithlomwen

If the bickering continues the thread will be locked until such time it can resume without the need for personal attacks against one another. 
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Pointless Digression

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on May 30, 2011, 11:45:03 AM
In a single angle, though, the acts of the Church should be applauded - and before people start jumping on me, hear me out.  The fact that they have the conviction to say "No, we've got a deeply held belief about homosexuality and gay marriage, and we're not going to compromise on it, even if it means discontinuing adoption."  That sort of act isn't very nice, I know, but they should be commended for the fact that they're willing to stand up for what they believe in rather than compromise.

Commitment to ideological purity is not a virtue in and of itself. Insert your own favorite sexual/ethinic/religious prejudice here. Just because a person was committed to it and willing to stand up for their belief doesn't entitle them to commendation for the fact that they stick to it.

Hypothetical scenario: let's say that this organization stuck to the "Jews as Christ-killers" prejudice that was historically present in the Catholic church, and declined to adopt children to Jewish couples because of that belief. If the Illinois state legislature was on the verge of passing a bill forbidding religious discrimination as a factor in placing children in adopted households, this organization might well choose to fold rather than being forced to place children with Jewish couples. Would you admire their ideological purity in that case?

Clarification: I am not saying that this organization or the Catholic Church are exhibiting antisemitism. I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself.

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on May 30, 2011, 11:45:03 AM
That part comes in the fact that homosexuality being a sin is rooted within the Bible - Old and New Testaments.  I don't recall anywhere where it says being a single parent is a sin - that's more Catholic tradition rather than Biblical principle - and certain instances of divorce aren't sins, either.

The Bible also says that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, have tattoos, or wear a shirt made of both wool and linen fibers.

Unless the Church was similarly making sure that no adopted parents eat lobster rolls, have tattoos, or wear blended fabrics, it's a case of cherry picking which biblical prohibitions they'll get their collective panties in a bunch over.
         

Trieste

I'm not actually certain that it's cherry-picking so much as rallying under the Protect the Children banner that has rallied so many other causes (anti-abortion, anti-HPV vaccine, abstinence education in schools, censorship of movies in the form of the MPAA, etc).

Callie Del Noire

I am not surprised by their action. From the agency's point of view, the writing was on the wall. There are, I'm sorry to say, folks out there looking to start trouble over religion (such as the guy who went around suing about the the ten commandments in court houses and such).

The people running the agency knew that sooner or later they would be in conflict with that law and rather than risk legal issues took the expedient step of shutting down. Financially this allows them to put church money into less regulated areas they feel than can help out.

It's a bummer, but at least they did it before the court cases started.


Jude

The religious discern between biblical tenets that are in their mind important (rules against homosexuality for example) and those that serve no clear purpose (prohibitions against shellfish).  In that way they are definitely cherry picking, it's just that they are employing a schema to do so ("the protect the children" mantra in this instance); so I think both Trieste and Pointless Digression are right.  Truthfully though, I'm glad they cherry pick.  It's much better to have a populace made up of faithful people who think for themselves (even if they're not always right) than having a nation full of absolute literalists.  This is really an example of the religious recognizing the shortcomings of the text (the fact that it was written by men and translated many times) while still searching for what rings true to them within it.

As far as the "is this bigotry" debate goes, I don't know if the Catholic Church is bigoted or not (that's a subjective question that is also rather meaningless given that bigotry is a spectrum not a binary proposition), but I do find their stance on homosexuality to be extremely unfair.  They expect a life of celibacy from homosexuals then punish them when they do not live up to that (in subtle ways, such as recognizing them as a immoral, denying them communion in some instances, or not letting them adopt).  And if you take the totality of their position on homosexuality into account it seems especially Draconian really.  They believe the following according to their own stated dogma in their Catechism:

1)  That people are born gay
2)  That homosexual actions are sinful
3)  That through faith in god it is possible to live without indulging in that sin

You would think that of all organizations, the Catholic Church would be the one to shy away from damning sexual relations between consenting homosexuals in the aftermath of their non-consensual pedophile priest scandals, but I guess this is beyond my understanding.  Somehow it's okay to expect more of laypeople than their own practitioners?

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Jude on May 30, 2011, 11:54:44 PM

You would think that of all organizations, the Catholic Church would be the one to shy away from damning sexual relations between consenting homosexuals in the aftermath of their non-consensual pedophile priest scandals, but I guess this is beyond my understanding.  Somehow it's okay to expect more of laypeople than their own practitioners?

Sadly the leadership might be following the old adage: 'Do as I say not as I do." And let's be realistic, only a small portion of the Church is involved those actions. Either doing or covering.

Jude

This is absolutely true.  Last I heard, the amount of actual priests guilty of pedophilia is comparable to the incidence in the population at large even if the number of cases per pedophile is exaggerated due to the ineffectual way that the church leadership handled it.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 30, 2011, 09:00:59 PM
Commitment to ideological purity is not a virtue in and of itself. Insert your own favorite sexual/ethinic/religious prejudice here. Just because a person was committed to it and willing to stand up for their belief doesn't entitle them to commendation for the fact that they stick to it.

Hypothetical scenario: let's say that this organization stuck to the "Jews as Christ-killers" prejudice that was historically present in the Catholic church, and declined to adopt children to Jewish couples because of that belief. If the Illinois state legislature was on the verge of passing a bill forbidding religious discrimination as a factor in placing children in adopted households, this organization might well choose to fold rather than being forced to place children with Jewish couples. Would you admire their ideological purity in that case?

Clarification: I am not saying that this organization or the Catholic Church are exhibiting antisemitism. I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself.

Yes.  I would.  I would find their ideology evil and abhorrent, something to be shunned rather than praised, but I would find their commitment to it to not be something negative.  We get a lot of people these days who are willing to compromise on their beliefs, which can be good in the short term but horrendous in the long term.

Allow me to utilize a historical example: slavery.  The Founding Fathers knew way back when that slavery was an issue, and a few members of that Congress (most notably Ben Franklin) tried to get the Constitution to say something about slavery.  Problem was, there were bigger issues at stake - the Southern states refused to ratify the Constitution if anything about slavery was said, and the Northern states refused if nothing about it was said.

What resulted?  The Three-Fifths Compromise, in which a slave counted as three-fifths of a person for both population and property tax.

What might surprise you is that everyone - Southerners included - knew that eventually slavery would have to go.  Problem was, the South's economy was built upon it, and no one could come up with a solution for the issue - no one conceived of a system to replace slavery.

Over the years, two more compromises - the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 - were done to prevent conflict from breaking out over slavery.  And even that didn't work, because part of the Missouri Compromise was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which allowed for the Lecompton Constitution - the allowance of Kansas to come in as a slave state.  But if I know my history - and I do - it wasn't much long after that that radical abolitionist ministers from New England supported a man who used violent and illegal means to overthrow Lecompton, and bring Kansas back to being a free state - this was Bleeding Kansas.

Compromising like this wasn't working, but no one was willing to go to conflict to resolved it.  And it wasn't until another man who had stood up and said, "No.  No more," and was elected, that the issue of slavery really got resolved.

To sum up: One's conviction and willingness to stand by their own ideologies is not inherently wrong.  It's the ideology that's wrong.

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 30, 2011, 09:00:59 PM
The Bible also says that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, have tattoos, or wear a shirt made of both wool and linen fibers.

Unless the Church was similarly making sure that no adopted parents eat lobster rolls, have tattoos, or wear blended fabrics, it's a case of cherry picking which biblical prohibitions they'll get their collective panties in a bunch over.
(Emphasis mine.)

No, it's not.  All those rules you quoted from the Old Testament?  Part of the old covenant that Moses and the Israelites made with God on Mt. Sinai.  Except no one could live up to the old covenant, because the purpose of it - now as it was then - was to remind us that we are fallen, and that we can't repair our relationship with God on our own - we need His help to do that.

But in the New Testament, Jesus tells the disciples that He is the new covenant, the old way of things is gone, the new has come, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  Therefore, we are no longer under the law of Moses (another way to refer to the Old Testament covenant), but under the laws of truth and grace, as stated by the apostle Paul.

Furthermore, the lobster thing?  In the books of Acts, Peter goes to a town called Caesarea, and while he is staying in someone's house, he sees a vision sent by God, in which a sheet containing all sort of 'unclean' animals from the Old Testament were contained.  Jesus then calls to Peter, telling him to 'Get up.  Kill and eat.'  To which Peter responds that he has never eaten anything unclean - and Jesus replies by telling him to not call anything unclean that God has made clean.  This happened three times, and then the vision ended.

So no, the church is not cherry picking things when they ignore stuff like that, because Christians A: are no longer under the covenant of the Old Testament, and B: the ultimate purpose of that covenant is to remind us of our fallen nature, not to just provide a set of guidelines to live by.

Pointless Digression

Quote from: Jude on May 31, 2011, 03:13:04 AM
Last I heard, the amount of actual priests guilty of pedophilia is comparable to the incidence in the population at large...

Ooooh! That sounds like a factual claim. Let's evaluate it. Stand back everyone, I'm going to try...MATH!!!

Okay, let's assess that claim. In America there are around 600,000 sex offenders, and of those around half of all sex crimes involved children under the age of 18. Crunch the numbers and around 0.08% of Americans are pedophilic sex offenders.

Let's start with the assumption that Catholic priests are no better than the average person when it comes to commiting sex crimes against children. First of all, whenever I hear that, my kneejerk response is:


But I digress. If Catholic priests are no better than the public at large, we would expect to find around that about 0.08% of them would be child rapists. Of course, since the Church has been systematically covering up cases of child rape, we can't know for sure what the percentage is. We can, however, take the Catholic Churches own figures, using a report commissioned by the Church and authorised for publication by the Catholic Church. The report only includes Catholic Priests serving in the US between 1950 and 2002, only includes reports made to the Catholic Church (not reports made directly to police), and only includes those reports which were entered into official Church documents (and we know that many reports were never officially recorded).

The headline figure was that 4% of Catholic priests had allegations of sexual abuse reported against them. However, the figure is actually much worse than the headline, since it is artificially decreased by priests entering or leaving the order around the cut-off dates (EG, a Priest ordained in 2001 counts in the total number of priests, but they only have a fraction of their career to count in the total number of sex offenses). If you take priests who served their full career during the reporting period, IE those ordained in 1970 so that the entire 30 years of normal service is included within the reporting period, 10% of Catholic priests had allegations of child sexual abuse reported against them.

Of course an allegation does not mean that a crime was actually committed. The Church reported only a tiny fraction of allegations to police - even priests with ten or more allegations were transferred to a new ministry 96% of the time, and only reported to police 4% of the time. So once again, we have to rely on the Church's own investigation. As reported by official Church documents, 82% of cases were noted at the time of the report to be "credible". 72% of cases were investigated, and of those 80% were found (by the Church) to be "substantiated" and only 1.5% of cases were found to be "false". When you crunch these numbers along with the 10% accusation rate, the Church's own official reports (which can be considered a bare minimum) demonstrate that 8.2-9.9% of Catholic Priests were child sex offenders.

So in other words, a Catholic priest is about 100 times more likely than a member of the public to be a pedophilic sex offender.
         

Pointless Digression

Reiji,

In my analogy to antisemitism, I finished with the line: "I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself."

On the same subject, you ended with the quote, "To sum up: One's conviction and willingness to stand by their own ideologies is not inherently wrong.  It's the ideology that's wrong.

So as far as that goes, we're in agreement. But you still expressed admiration that the Church was willing to stick by their commitment, and I'm approaching it from the angle that if a person's beliefs result in demonstrable harm to another person, I don't give them any bonus points for sticking to them. Especially not in this case, as the people being harmed by the Church's commitment to its beliefs are desperately needful children.

Thank you for the history and theology lesson. I don't really want to go down that path, since it's a tangent to the original post, so we can either pick it up in a new thread or in messages if you want to hear my response.
         

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 31, 2011, 08:14:08 AM
Reiji,

In my analogy to antisemitism, I finished with the line: "I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself."

On the same subject, you ended with the quote, "To sum up: One's conviction and willingness to stand by their own ideologies is not inherently wrong.  It's the ideology that's wrong.

So as far as that goes, we're in agreement.

Yes, so it does.  And for that, I am certainly glad.

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 31, 2011, 08:14:08 AM
But you still expressed admiration that the Church was willing to stick by their commitment, and I'm approaching it from the angle that if a person's beliefs result in demonstrable harm to another person, I don't give them any bonus points for sticking to them. Especially not in this case, as the people being harmed by the Church's commitment to its beliefs are desperately needful children.

You are correct in that the RCC's decision to do this are resulting in almost-certain harm to persons - children or the employees.  But IMO, that's not a result of their adherence, that's a result of having a flawed ideology.  I know it might not sound different, but it is to me.  In a way, it's similar to Voltaire's "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 31, 2011, 08:14:08 AM
Thank you for the history and theology lesson. I don't really want to go down that path, since it's a tangent to the original post, so we can either pick it up in a new thread or in messages if you want to hear my response.

Yes, that was a bit of a tangent from the original question, which is about the Catholic Church's adoption program and homosexuals.  If I want to pick it up again, you'll hear from me.

Jude

I'm not sure I agree with the statistical changes you're invoking, removing of young-career priests, because the numbers for the general population don't exact remove people who recently turned adults thus become eligible for pedophilia.  Your .08% number also isn't correct:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618

From what I've seen around 5% of the public is a guilty of child molestation and:

http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf

Lands the percent of priests at 4.

Noelle

I'm reluctant to wave my flags for the whole "stick to your guns" mantra. If better information becomes available that shows someone's stance to be flawed or otherwise incomplete/wrong/unjust/etc., I hardly want them to stubbornly adhere to what they believed before. That's not a mark of virtue, that's a mark of willful ignorance because certain facts are inconvenient or that a person feels threatened by the truth.

Lyell

I'm no expert on this but telling people that their beliefs, their faith and their teachings are incomplete/wrong/unjust/etc. rarely produces positive results. People tend to resist change unless they see it as immediately beneficial. For that reason, I do not applaud or condemn the adoption agency for its actions as it was practically expected.

For the record, I do not agree with their reason but I respect that it IS their decision to make.
When you absolutely, positively have to kill it with fire...accept no substitutes.