Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

[ninerbuff]

In seeking to understand the traditional family, Christians should keep in mind that not only are individual persons created in the image of God, but so is the family itself. The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity. There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".

The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).

Thus, it is precisely because the homosexual sex act is not ordered to the procession of another person, that it can never be a Trinitarian reflection of the divine essence.

Indeed, the sexual act itself, which is supposed to be a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, becomes, through the homosexual act, a blasphemy against God since it ends up distorting the Trinitarian image of Him.

The human sexual act either affirms God's image or it distorts it. This is why all forms of contraceptive sex, including the homosexual act, are serious sins: they seek to create God in another image. It is anti-Trinitarian.
http://catholic-legate.com/articles/antitrinity.html

Of course most of this is stuff made up by the church for followers to follow. Most catholics have absolutely no idea of the tenets of faith. They just go to mass because their parents told them so. It's easy to learn all the repetitive stuff and later convince yourself that you're a catholic because you mindlessly go to mass each week.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quote me instead of making insulting assertions.

If I've misunderstood what you've said, please tell me where I've gone wrong. I gave what I thought was a fair summary of your main argument.

Homosexual behavior is against the laws of God and nature. That is a fact, not a hateful remark.

I disagree, but regardless, you're free to believe it if you want. I'm not trying to stop you from believing anything; I'm just in favour of the government not materially supporting harmful beliefs.

I volunteer at an AIDS clinic and my best friend is gay. I will not "admit" to your twisting of my post. I am not against homosexuals, I am against homosexual behaviour and the horrors that go with the lifestyle.

I don't believe you.

By asserting the right to define marraige in a Catholic funded adoption agency?

Nobody's "defining marriage" for anyone. Catholic Charities of Rockford are still free to believe whatever they want and to act on it.

Or be denying homosexuals into the seminaries who have caused 80% of scandals?

Or maybe you have an example where the Church's actions are "decidedly not based in love"?

"Conversion therapy", for starters.

Or how about what's made the news recently in Ontario, where (publicly funded) Catholic school boards have clamped down on student anti-bullying clubs for being too soft on homosexuality?

And the government has the right to tell you how to practice your morals? I'm not confused. The government has no right to force the Church to violate her stand on marraige.

What are you talking about? Exactly how has the government forced anything on anyone in this case? Catholic Charities took its stance, and the government effectively said "okay, but we won't place wards of the state through you any more."

Do you think that Catholic Charities of Rockford has a right to care for wards of the state? Because earlier when the question was adoption by same-sex parents, I seem to recall you saying that nobody has this right.

If they are fully funded by the government, then they have no authority to withdraw its services.

Sure they do - just like any government contractor. If the company doesn't want to abide by the government's requirements, then they don't get future work.

Forcing any Catholic Charity to compromise Catholic teaching on marrige or any other teaching is not discriminatory.

That's a refreshing change of view from you... either that or there's a typo in there somewhere.

This just an empty assertion.. Document your"valid" research as I have done with just one "valid" reference.

Here you go. Here's an article about a meta-study of 15 different studies. They found that same-sex parented kids did just as well as opposite-sex parented kids:

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.
Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

If they were funded by the state alone then what's the problem?

I don't understand your question. You're the one saying there's a problem.

I disagree with Catholic Charities' stance on this issue. In fact, I consider it offensive and harmful. Still, I'm not saying they don't have a right to take it.

I have documented the opposite is true, you have documented nothing.

You're puffing yourself up a bit. You've done nothing of the sort. You've given bald assertions with a reference list that we have no way to check (though looks suspiciously out-of-date, judging by the dates you gave). I have no way to confirm (and no reason to assume) that you have represented the findings of those "secular" articles fairly or accurately.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Homosexual behavior is against the laws of God and nature..

Your God.
And define the "Laws of Nature"

I am against homosexual behaviour and the horrors that go with the lifestyle

.

What horrors?

By asserting the right to define marraige in a Catholic funded adoption agency?

Only if it receives public funds.

And the government has the right to tell you how to practice your morals? I'm not confused. The government has no right to force the Church to violate her stand on marraige.

Who claimed the Government can force the Church to change it's stance?
What is asserted is that if any private agency receives public funding, at all, that funding is dependent on public law.

Gay adoptees get referred to government agencies that will permit child abuse.

Baseless accusations do not help your stand.

Racist Protestant cults are in serious error, and they have nothing to do with the topic.

Pot, meet Kettle....

 

[Draka]

Prudent lawmakers interested in balancing church and state interests and servicing children would not seek to impose secular views on sectarian institutions.

I found this quote rather ironic. For isn't wanting to run state-funded adoption and foster care services with religious exclusions imposing religious views on a secular function?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Well, Hallelujia! That is what I have been trying to say all along.

Hell, it was probably a backhanded way for the State to force us out of the biz in the first place. Can't have those evil traditional values foisted on kids after all, now can we.

LOL, traditional values? If these are the values you teach your children, you can kindly stay far, far away from mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I found this quote rather ironic. For isn't wanting to run state-funded adoption and foster care services with religious exclusions imposing religious views on a secular function?

One would think so.

 

[kepha31]

The lawmakers could have passed exemptions for Catholic funded adoption agencies the right to screen ALL foster parents as they see fitr, but they refused. And what you have is the secular government imosing its values (or lack thereof) onto a secarian service, because nobody gives a **** about what the Catholic Church teaches about marraige and families. It is impossible for a Catholic institution to sanction a same sex marraige for the sake of adoption or any other reason. This imposed dilemna on the Church was orchestrated when the laws were changed. It's the gay agenda in persecution mode. The legislators planned on this happening and blaming the Church is just plain stupid.

 

[kepha31]

A friend recently asked: “How long do we have left as a society?” In answer to that question I informed her about an interesting and comprehensive study that a renowned British anthropologist, Joseph Unwin, PhD., presented to the British Psychological Society in 1935. Unwin sought to prove that the traditional monogamous model for marriage was not essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. After studying 86 different cultures, across time and continents –and much to his surprise — he came to the inescapable conclusion that the traditional male-female monogamous model for marriage was indeed the best foundation for a healthy and productive society.

Unwin found that societies that adopted this model typically took about three generations to reach their peak of productivity and progress. After that, frequently, a gradual development of complacency and licentiousness would take place and what he described as an ”outburst of homosexuality” would sometimes occur. When that happened, and the society started to move away from the traditional model of male-female monogamous marriage as its foundation, it would begin to unravel. It would then take another three generations of deterioration from that point for the society to collapse.
How Much Time Does the U.S. Have? | Catholic Exchange

 

[kepha31]

If the state of Illinois wants to grant adoption rights to homosexual couples in a civil union, it has a right to do so. But it has no right to force its will on those who, as a matter of conscience, disagree. This is especially true when conscience rights are grounded in religion: the First Amendment kicks in at this point.


Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria does not discriminate between heterosexuals or homosexuals. It simply defends the institution of marriage. Heterosexual men and women who cohabit are no different from homosexual couples who live together: neither are married and both are therefore disqualified from receiving the sponsorship of Catholic adoption services. They can go elsewhere, and are indeed advised of alternative services by Catholic Charities. But no one has a right to demand that a religion forfeit its doctrinal prerogatives by bowing to the secular creed of the state in matters of marriage and the family.


Those who truly believe in diversity will respect the plea for pluralism made by Catholic Charities. If separation of church and state means anything, it means the right of religious bodies to practice their faith without state encroachment.
Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

 

[ninerbuff]

A friend recently asked: “How long do we have left as a society?” In answer to that question I informed her about an interesting and comprehensive study that a renowned British anthropologist, Joseph Unwin, PhD., presented to the British Psychological Society in 1935. Unwin sought to prove that the traditional monogamous model for marriage was not essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. After studying 86 different cultures, across time and continents –and much to his surprise — he came to the inescapable conclusion that the traditional male-female monogamous model for marriage was indeed the best foundation for a healthy and productive society.

Unwin found that societies that adopted this model typically took about three generations to reach their peak of productivity and progress. After that, frequently, a gradual development of complacency and licentiousness would take place and what he described as an ”outburst of homosexuality” would sometimes occur. When that happened, and the society started to move away from the traditional model of male-female monogamous marriage as its foundation, it would begin to unravel. It would then take another three generations of deterioration from that point for the society to collapse.
How Much Time Does the U.S. Have? | Catholic Exchange

So you're saying homosexuality only "re appears" every few generations to upsurp society?

 

[ninerbuff]

If the state of Illinois wants to grant adoption rights to homosexual couples in a civil union, it has a right to do so. But it has no right to force its will on those who, as a matter of conscience, disagree. This is especially true when conscience rights are grounded in religion: the First Amendment kicks in at this point.


Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria does not discriminate between heterosexuals or homosexuals. It simply defends the institution of marriage. Heterosexual men and women who cohabit are no different from homosexual couples who live together: neither are married and both are therefore disqualified from receiving the sponsorship of Catholic adoption services. They can go elsewhere, and are indeed advised of alternative services by Catholic Charities. But no one has a right to demand that a religion forfeit its doctrinal prerogatives by bowing to the secular creed of the state in matters of marriage and the family.


Those who truly believe in diversity will respect the plea for pluralism made by Catholic Charities. If separation of church and state means anything, it means the right of religious bodies to practice their faith without state encroachment.
Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

Though I despise the catholic church, I will have to agree that the church has the right.

 

[kiwimac]

The sooner the RCC is consigned to history's waste-basket the better for all.

 

[kepha31]

The sooner the RCC is consigned to history's waste-basket the better for all.

Every anti-Christian dictatorship for the pst 2000 years have tried. Given some of the episcopates we have had, if we can't destroy the Church ourseves, nothing can. Do you think we area billion strong because all our leaders have been so smart, even in the face of constant world resistance? You give us much more credit than we give ourselves if that's the case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria does not discriminate between heterosexuals or homosexuals. It simply defends the institution of marriage. Heterosexual men and women who cohabit are no different from homosexual couples who live together: neither are married and both are therefore disqualified from receiving the sponsorship of Catholic adoption services. They can go elsewhere, and are indeed advised of alternative services by Catholic Charities. But no one has a right to demand that a religion forfeit its doctrinal prerogatives by bowing to the secular creed of the state in matters of marriage and the family.

Hypothetical scenario: say there's a Protestant charity that refuses to provide its services to Catholics, and cites its religious beliefs as the reason why. Should this charity receive government funds?

If, when Catholics came knocking, they were referred to a non-discriminatory agency and turned away, would you be satisfied?

Those who truly believe in diversity will respect the plea for pluralism made by Catholic Charities. If separation of church and state means anything, it means the right of religious bodies to practice their faith without state encroachment.
Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

Exactly what do you think is the "encroachment" here? Catholic Charities still provides adoption services, and they're provided in just as discriminatory a manner as they were before. The only difference is that the government doesn't use them for wards of the state. I don't see any encroachment.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I would love to see the statistics on the RCC's privately funded adoption service in regards to number of adoptions to religious families and Atheist/Agnostic families. It would probably be a safe bet to say that there is quite a bit of bias when it comes to deciding who gets adoption approval.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The lawmakers could have passed exemptions for Catholic funded adoption agencies the right to screen ALL foster parents as they see fit....

Exemptions?
You mean, giving preferential government treatment to a religious organization that receive government funding to supplement their services?

 

[idav]

But at the same time we cannot place children in dens of mortal sin.

I agree with this but then I don't agrees that same gender marraige is a mortal sin. Would be nice if the catholic church could keep kids away from pedophiles which I do believe would be a mortal sin.

But then you guys are strict and even having sex out of wedlock is a mortal sin but then the system is discriminatory against non-married couples anyway.

It is hard to find good parents and the church is just overlooking good candidates as do many adoption agencies that have a christian bias and don't even like atheists adopting.

 

[kepha31]

Hypothetical scenario: say there's a Protestant charity that refuses to provide its services to Catholics, and cites its religious beliefs as the reason why. Should this charity receive government funds?

You fail to understand the fiscal overlaps between goverment contracts with religious bodies. The government has mutual contracts with Catholic agencies who specialize in marraige and families. Pretending their is no Catholic funding is just dishonest. This question is a non-sequitur. Why should the Catholic Church fund its money to send kids to any non-marraige? Marraige means something.

If, when Catholics came knocking, they were referred to a non-discriminatory agency and turned away, would you be satisfied?

There is no discrimination. "Same sex unions" cannot be a marraige according to Catholic beliefs. You are saying Catholics have no right to be selective when it comes to foster care/adoption. Fulfilling gay couple quotas at the expense of well qualified couples is what you end up with, IMO.

Exactly what do you think is the "encroachment" here? Catholic Charities still provides adoption services, and they're provided in just as discriminatory a manner as they were before. The only difference is that the government doesn't use them for wards of the state. I don't see any encroachment.

[/QUOTE] What about the kids?

 

[kepha31]

I would love to see the statistics on the RCC's privately funded adoption service in regards to number of adoptions to religious families and Atheist/Agnostic families. It would probably be a safe bet to say that there is quite a bit of bias when it comes to deciding who gets adoption approval.

I would love to see comparative per-capita statistics on the number of Atheist/Agnostic adoption agencies.

If a greater number of Catholics turn to a Catholic agency for anything, it usually means there is a greater number of Catholics seeking the service. That's not discrimination, its just numbers. I would like to see the statistics on the number of non-Catholics who turn to Catholic food banks, Catholic nursing homes, Catholic hospitals, Catholic counseling agencies, Catholic housing projects, the list goes on. Should a gay couple take priority for adoption because they are gay? Dare we call it discrimination?

 

[Father Heathen]

You fail to understand the fiscal overlaps between goverment contracts with religious bodies. The government has mutual contracts with Catholic agencies who specialize in marraige and families. Pretending their is no Catholic funding is just dishonest. This question is a non-sequitur. Why should the Catholic Church fund its money to send kids to any non-marraige? Marraige means something.

Nice dodge. Why can't you answer the question?