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

[GabrielWithoutWings]

there is such a thing as freedom of conscience

It is against human rights to force someone to do something that runs contrary to their own conscience.

I applaud the church's stance. Its much better then caving in and acting against their consciences.

Would you applaud the Ku Klux Klan as well? They're following their consciences, too.

 

[Pegg]

Would you applaud the Ku Klux Klan as well? They're following their consciences, too.

no they are not followers of their conscience

they are followers of their hate and racism

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

no they are not followers of their conscience

they are followers of their hate and racism

Wow, no kidding? You don't say?

 

[Pegg]

Wow, no kidding? You don't say?

yeah, and it has nothing to do with conscience.

Im not sure how you managed to link the two.

 

[kepha31]

*****

 

[kepha31]

9/10 Penguin:"I don't hate what you are; I only hate any expression of what you are."

It's not really any better.

Ok, so a heterosexual who cheats on his wife is just expressing who he is? A homosexual who gets poop on his penis is immoral as a heterosexual who cheats on his wife. It has nothing to do with “expression of what you are”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
Furthermore the Catholic Church has the most compassionate view towards homosexuality than any church I know of.

You're joking, right?

The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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 that they may encounter from their condition.

"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" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net
… the Catholic Church has the most compassionate view towards homosexuality than any church I know of. <That still stands..
Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
The real issue here is the right of the Church to uphold her teachings on marraige.

No, it's not.

Nobody's stopping the Catholic Church from preaching whatever hateful rhetoric it wants. The real issue is that a secular government shouldn't be made to support it.

You have it backwards. The government is forcing the Church to compromise her definition of marraige in the context of adoption. That is the real issue. The Church is suimply pulling out HER FUNDING on these agencies for that reason.
The Church’s teaching on marriage is not hateful rhetoric. The issue is the Church’s moral and civil right not to adopt to gay couples within AN AGENCY THAT IS MOSTLY FUNDED BY THE CHURCH. It’s the social and medical community that is saying adoption to gay couples is damaging to children, yet you scream about how wrong the Church is. The Church is pulling her funding because the government is forcing the church to violate her teachings on marriage. Try reading the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
Children have a right to a mommy and a daddy. The sexes are different. Because gender is a real phenomenon, it should come as no surprise that men and women parent differently. Men and women bring different, complementary skills to childrearing. Men are more likely to play expansively with their children than to do mundane care taking; women tend to be more practical. Mothers tend to be more responsive to their child's immediate needs, while fathers tend to be more firm, more oriented to abstract standards of justice (right and wrong). Kids need both.

Gender stereotypes die hard, apparently.

Unisexism is here today, gone tomorrow.

However, any talk about some fictitious "right to a mommy AND a daddy" is a bit of a red herring when we're trying to decide whether to place a ward of the state (i.e. a child with no mommy or daddy... no fit one, anyhow) with a same-sex couple. There's no "a mommy AND a daddy" option in that equation, so your point, if it were correct (which it isn't), is entirely irrelevant.

There are waiting lists of both sex couples that far outnumber the potentially emotionally damaging same sex couples. There are no overflowing orphanages. My documentation is not a Catholic source but from non-Catholics in the medical and social sciences. There is no bias in it. Adoption to same sex couples may be politically correct, but morally wrong..


Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
Adopting children to gay couples is child abuse as far as I am concerned, and that staterment is supported by secular, non-religious journals.

Baloney. Are you so blinded by hate that you would deny a child a loving home to satisfy your religious predilections? That's child abuse, IMO.

I am not blinded by facts. The Church primarily funds the agencies in question. It is the government that is imposing its anti-Christian and anti-human policies that demand the Church violate its own teachings. True, children will not benefit from the service, it just means the government will have to spend more money to keep the same adoption output rates. Children are not being denied a loving family, you simply refuse to accept what a loving and healthy family means. Gay couples will be awarded custody by quota, not by qualification.

 

[kepha31]

Every child who ever lived came into the world the product of a union between a man and a woman, and every child has a right to be raised by his or her father and mother. If this is not possible, and adoption is the logical alternative, then every effort should be made to place the child with a married couple. Cohabitating and heterosexual couples, same sex couples and single persons may be able to provide the prospective adopted child with love, but that is not sufficient. To be specific, cohabitating couples lack the permanence that most married couples provide, and society has a vested interest in providing children with a stable and patterned environment. Same sex couples, as well as single persons, lack the requisites provided by nature that would allow them to be a father and a mother, thus rendering them a poor substitute and inadequate role model for parenting. In short, society should socially ratify the cues provided by nature. Ergo, gay adoption is not a wise policy decision." The prime reason why gay activists will reject the league's position has to do with our decision to acknowledge nature's limits.

by Bill Donohue Ph.D.GAY ADOPTION

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

yeah, and it has nothing to do with conscience.

Im not sure how you managed to link the two.

Are you kidding me Pegg? You're not sure how I managed to link the two together?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This whole conversation is shockingly anachronistic.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

To be specific, cohabitating couples lack the permanence that most married couples provide, and society has a vested interest in providing children with a stable and patterned environment.

Absolute tosh. This is a biased generalization.

That this fellow is the current president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is absolutely laughable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, so a heterosexual who cheats on his wife is just expressing who he is?

Maybe he is. IMO, most of the instances I've seen of "love the sinner, hate the sin" wind up in hypocrisy. Speaking for myself, I'm not okay with adulterers or adultery.

If you're going to be against homosexual people, why not come out and say it? Why dishonestly claim you're being their friend while you preach hateful, harmful things against them?

The Catholic Church thus teaches:

I know perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches. I've read the Catechism and I've heard the Catholic position on homosexuality preached in Mass. My position stands: while the Church claims that it loves homosexual people, its actions toward them are decidedly not based in love.

No, it's not.
You have it backwards. The government is forcing the Church to compromise her definition of marraige in the context of adoption. That is the real issue. The Church is suimply pulling out HER FUNDING on these agencies for that reason.

I think you're confused. It's not that Catholic Charities of Rockford's hand has been force by the diocese pulling funding; it's that, because they were acting as a contractor to provide government services (namely adoption and foster care placement for children under the responsibility of Child & Family Services), they had to meet the same requirements as the government when providing those government services. Apparently, Catholic Charities of Rockford decided it couldn't abide by these requirements, and decided to cease being a government contractor of adoption and foster care services.

The Church&#8217;s teaching on marriage is not hateful rhetoric. The issue is the Church&#8217;s moral and civil right not to adopt to gay couples within AN AGENCY THAT IS MOSTLY FUNDED BY THE CHURCH.

Catholic Charities of Rockford does lots of things, and most of them aren't government funded. It also does both governmental and non-governmental adoption and foster care services. The services it provides (or provided, rather) on behalf of the government are fully funded by the government.

It was functioning as a government contractor. Just as, say, a highway builder isn't allowed to violate government health and safety policies while constructing an interstate, Catholic Charities of Rockford wasn't allowed to violate government discrimination policies while placing wards of the state with adoptive families or in foster care.

In the same way that some highway contractors feel that the extra health and safety requirements (which include not only doing things safely, but a ton of documentation, training, documentation of the training, etc., etc.) of working on a government job make them not worth their while, Catholic Charities of Rockford decided that its requirements are too onerous, so while it still provides private adoption services, it doesn't provide them on government contract.

It&#8217;s the social and medical community that is saying adoption to gay couples is damaging to children, yet you scream about how wrong the Church is.

The social and medical community in your head, you mean? All the research - valid research - to date shows that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well in every measurable way as children raised by opposite-sex couples.

The Church is pulling her funding because the government is forcing the church to violate her teachings on marriage. Try reading the OP.

I did. I don't think you did, though. The first hint that your interpretation is wrong is right in the headline:

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

There are waiting lists of both sex couples that far outnumber the potentially emotionally damaging same sex couples. There are no overflowing orphanages. My documentation is not a Catholic source but from non-Catholics in the medical and social sciences. There is no bias in it. Adoption to same sex couples may be politically correct, but morally wrong..

There's high demand for healthy individual babies. Other kids, including older children & teens, children with physical, behavioural or developmental problems, and groups of siblings can be very hard to place with a family.

Edit: and that's for adoption. From what I've read, finding foster parents is a continual challenge for all kinds of kids.

I am not blinded by facts.

I assume that's a typo or a Freudian slip, but it's still pretty funny.

The Church primarily funds the agencies in question.

But not the services in question. The fact that Catholic Charities of Rockford does other thing doesn't change the fact that these government adoption and foster care services were funded by the state.

It is the government that is imposing its anti-Christian and anti-human policies that demand the Church violate its own teachings.

No, it's not. Catholic Charities of Rockford have decided on a hateful and harmful course of action, and nobody's stopping them. They can do what they want; they just don't get government money or support to help them do it.

True, children will not benefit from the service, it just means the government will have to spend more money to keep the same adoption output rates.

No... I think things will be okay in the end. The fact that Catholic Charities of Boston isn't providing these services any more frees up the money for the state to award the contract to another contractor. In the long term, things will be just as good if not better; the problem is in the short term, where the transition from one provider to another might cause some disruption.

Children are not being denied a loving family, you simply refuse to accept what a loving and healthy family means.

No, I know perfectly well what it means: a family that provides a loving and healthy environment for the children growing up in it. And same-sex parents fit that bill just as much as opposite-sex parents.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok, so a heterosexual who cheats on his wife is just expressing who he is? A homosexual who gets poop on his penis is immoral as a heterosexual who cheats on his wife. It has nothing to do with “expression of what you are”.

Unfortunately it's no surprise that misanthropy is a pillar of Roman Catholic dogma.

There should be no place for the degredation and devaluation of human beings in RC life, yet they produce thousands of leaders who hate children, women, and men - and for the silliest reasons. And it's not a paradox. It's open hypocrisy.

What a shame.

 

[ninerbuff]

by Bill Donohue Ph.D.GAY ADOPTION

Lol, but it's okay for kids to be raised in a religion that hides priests who sexually abuse children?
And if a child is gay to heterosexual parents, are the heterosexual parents going to be bad examples to the gay child?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Perhaps you mean the non-religous journals that I quoted to support my opinion. They must be bigotted and dogmatic. So where does a mindless flaming zinger leave you?

No, I mean your bigoted and ignorant statement.
As the biological father (donor) of a daughter being raised by a very loving lesbian couple, I find your statement not only ignorant, but your sources ill-informed and biased.

My wife, who works with truly abused children, also finds your statement demeaning to the trauma of children whose lives have been torn apart by abuse.

On the other hand, thank you for confirming the previous posts on the psychological harm bigotry and Catholic dogma does to children in need.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

by Bill Donohue Ph.D.GAY ADOPTION

I didn't know that they gave out Ph.D.'s in stupidity.

If I ever write something like that, I would have the good sense to leave off the Ph.D. He probably got it in garbage disposal or education or something.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

No, I mean your bigoted and ignorant statement.
As the biological father (donor) of a daughter being raised by a very loving lesbian couple, I find your statement not only ignorant, but your sources ill-informed and biased.

My wife, who works with truly abused children, also finds your statement demeaning to the trauma of children whose lives have been torn apart by abuse.

On the other hand, thank you for confirming the previous posts on the psychological harm bigotry and Catholic dogma does to children in need.

You must spread some frubals around...

Meh.

 

[kepha31]

Maybe he is. IMO, most of the instances I've seen of "love the sinner, hate the sin" wind up in hypocrisy. Speaking for myself, I'm not okay with adulterers or adultery.

Quote me instead of making insulting assertions. Homosexual behavior is against the laws of God and nature. That is a fact, not a hateful remark. Heterosexual sins are just as amoral as homosexual sins. That is the point stand by and it is not any more hateful than you being hateful towards heterosexuals who sin.

If you're going to be against homosexual people, why not come out and say it? Why dishonestly claim you're being their friend while you preach hateful, harmful things against them?

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 know perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches. I've read the Catechism and I've heard the Catholic position on homosexuality preached in Mass. My position stands: while the Church claims that it loves homosexual people, its actions toward them are decidedly not based in love.

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

I think you're confused. It's not that Catholic Charities of Rockford's hand has been force by the diocese pulling funding; it's that, because they were acting as a contractor to provide government services (namely adoption and foster care placement for children under the responsibility of Child & Family Services), they had to meet the same requirements as the government when providing those government services. Apparently, Catholic Charities of Rockford decided it couldn't abide by these requirements, and decided to cease being a government contractor of adoption and foster care services.

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.

Catholic Charities of Rockford does lots of things, and most of them aren't government funded. It also does both governmental and non-governmental adoption and foster care services. The services it provides (or provided, rather) on behalf of the government are fully funded by the government.

If they are fully funded by the government, then they have no authority to withdraw its services. You are confused and misinformed. There are many Catholic and Protestant services that are a mix of church and public funds. Housing is a good example. Catholic Charities of Rockford adoption agency was paritally funded by both.

It was functioning as a government contractor.
Just as, say, a highway builder isn't allowed to violate government health and safety policies while constructing an interstate, Catholic Charities of Rockford wasn't allowed to violate government discrimination policies while placing wards of the state with adoptive families or in foster care.

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

In the same way that some highway contractors feel that the extra health and safety requirements (which include not only doing things safely, but a ton of documentation, training, documentation of the training, etc., etc.) of working on a government job make them not worth their while, Catholic Charities of Rockford decided that its requirements are too onerous, so while it still provides private adoption services, it doesn't provide them on government contract.

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

The social and medical community in your head, you mean? All the research - valid research - to date shows that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well in every measurable way as children raised by opposite-sex couples.

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

But not the services in question. The fact that Catholic Charities of Rockford does other thing doesn't change the fact that these government adoption and foster care services were funded by the state.

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


No, it's not. Catholic Charities of Rockford have decided on a hateful and harmful course of action, and nobody's stopping them. They can do what they want; they just don't get government money or support to help them do it.

No, the government does not get their financial support. You have it backwards. (still)

No, I know perfectly well what it means: a family that provides a loving and healthy environment for the children growing up in it. And same-sex parents fit that bill just as much as opposite-sex parents.

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

 

[Father Heathen]

yeah, and it has nothing to do with conscience.

Im not sure how you managed to link the two.

You managed to link homophobia and misogyny with conscience, so why not racism? Your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[Father Heathen]

This discussion reminds me of this classic letter:

Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack

I think we can conclude that the bible has no use beyond toilet paper.

 

[Pegg]

You managed to link homophobia and misogyny with conscience, so why not racism? Your hypocrisy is showing.

I did nothing of the sort.

I dont usually make a habit of defending the catholic church, but on this point I totally agree with their decision.

the charter of human rights agrees with them too:
Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

They hold to traditional values that a child is raised by a man and woman. Do you honestly think that is a bad thing?
And would you honestly force someone to do something that they feel is wrong?

well if you would, then you are against human rights.