Homosexual adoption - Abomination or not?

[Quiddity]

The law is not the same things as religion and requiring an organization to uphold all relevant non-discrimination standards is not equivalent to an organization wanting to enforce its moral standards on the non-Catholic population it serves with that money. So yes CC is pushing when they sue to keep a contract they cannot legally keep because they discriminate. This would be like allowing a church based charity to discriminate by race because of their beliefs while receiving state funding to feed the poor. Not acceptable.

Whether they are exactly the same is irrelevant, law is an expression of morality; it's inescapable. Whether you manufacture that morality from via religion or through pragmatism, it is still from the same mystical pool that I derive my morality from (attaching meaning to things). What we forbid or accept tells us what we do or do not value. We don't allow pedophilia for example because we value the life of children. You can pretty much go down the line of any law and attach some sort of "value" to it.

Besides, I'm not even arguing that a wasn't broken here, so I'm not sure why you keep pushing this.

Lastly, laws can be wrong.

I had 22 years of Catholic upbringing and 16 years of Catholic education while being an active and educated believer. I'm not a theologian, but I consider myself the equivalent of an educated and active Catholic believer and more so than many. The idea that the church would be in violation of its moral standards because it placed a child in the custody of a gay couple is ridiculous. The church doesn't police the morality of straight married couples by ensuring they attend church regularly, don't masturbate, or only use natural family planning. Only objecting when it comes down to discriminating against gays (and typically with abortion issues as well) is disingenuous, and a political move behalf of the American bishops. If CC valued their mission over the politics they'd continue to serve their clients.

It even has a designated division just to police against gays!.... Your extensive experience as a catholic should have shown you just how poor a job they do at policing anything.

 

[Drolefille]

Whether they are exactly the same is irrelevant, law is an expression of morality; it's inescapable. Whether you manufacture that morality from via religion or through pragmatism, it is still from the same mystical pool that I derive my morality from (attaching meaning to things). What we forbid or accept tells us what we do or do not value. We don't allow pedophilia for example because we value the life of children. You can pretty much go down the line of any law and attach some sort of "value" to it.

Besides, I'm not even arguing that a wasn't broken here, so I'm not sure why you keep pushing this.

Lastly, laws can be wrong.

They sure can but this is right.

You were the one who brought up Catholic Charities and laws related to adoptions, that's where they were breaking the law. If you don't want to talk about it then don't bring it up.

It even has a designated division just to police against gays!.... Your extensive experience as a catholic should have shown you just how poor a job they do at policing anything.

You are skilled at missing my point. Same sex marriage and abortion are the two apparent hot button issues that the American bishops are pushing not just in the church - which would be fine - but in society. Catholic Charities' stand-off reflects this political move rather than the more typical policy of Catholics holding themselves slightly separate in beliefs and being ok that others don't. When the Church tries to get a law passed that no one can eat fish on Fridays in Lent, I'll at least see them as consistent, even if still unethical.

The average lay Catholic doesn't necessarily agree with those policies, or those on birth control, or gays, etc. But regardless it's what the hierarchy presses and that is who Catholic Charities - which are typically if not always run by the diocese - has to answer to.

 

[blackout]

The RC teaches that birth control significantly compromises
every marriage in which it is used,
linking it even to the increase of divorce.

As such it would seem that,
in the best interests of a stable home for the children,
Catholic Charities should pre-screen all couples re. birth control usage.
No children should be adopted out to couples
who approve of birth control,
as it is likely that they may one day use it to compromise their own marriage,
if they are not presently doing so already.

 

[Quiddity]

They sure can but this is right.

You were the one who brought up Catholic Charities and laws related to adoptions, that's where they were breaking the law. If you don't want to talk about it then don't bring it up.

Where did I bring up "laws related to adoptions"?

You are skilled at missing my point. Same sex marriage and abortion are the two apparent hot button issues that the American bishops are pushing not just in the church - which would be fine - but in society. Catholic Charities' stand-off reflects this political move rather than the more typical policy of Catholics holding themselves slightly separate in beliefs and being ok that others don't. When the Church tries to get a law passed that no one can eat fish on Fridays in Lent, I'll at least see them as consistent, even if still unethical.

The average lay Catholic doesn't necessarily agree with those policies, or those on birth control, or gays, etc. But regardless it's what the hierarchy presses and that is who Catholic Charities - which are typically if not always run by the diocese - has to answer to.

Since you were talking about making straight couples attend church regularly, I assumed you meant catholic straight couples. Specifically the word "regularly" gave me that impression. So naturally I took policing from within as what you were talking about. Mea culpa if that's not what you meant.

It's radiantly obvious your education was nominal at best. No religioous institution wishes to apply everything and those that they do are not all equal. I suspect you haven't the foggiest idea about the hierarchy of truths is all about (and probably care even less to know now) and how it applies to what you speak of above. In short, all things are not equal, so obviously some things are going to be talked about more then others. Unless of course you plan to completely eliminate religious folks from voting and having opinions to the contrary.

 

[Quiddity]

The RC teaches that birth control significantly compromises
every marriage in which it is used,
linking it even to the increase of divorce.

As such it would seem that,
in the best interests of a stable home for the children,
Catholic Charities should pre-screen all couples re. birth control usage.
No children should be adopted out to couples
who approve of birth control,
as it is likely that they may one day use it to compromise their own marriage,
if they are not presently doing so already.

Source?

 

[blackout]

Source?

Just go to any natural family planning session.

I've been to them,
read the books.
Sat through the propaganda.
(which I bought at the time)

Have you?

 

[blackout]

There's likely something in the Catechism of the RCC under contraceptives,
or natural family planning,
but I no longer care enough to go back there and look.

 

[Quiddity]

Just go to any natural family planning session.

I've been to them,
read the books.
Sat through the propaganda.

Have you?

I have, it's an opinion held by many catholics and even some catholic organizations, but that's a long shot from pinning that on the magesterium.

 

[Quiddity]

There's likely something in the Catechism of the RCC under contraceptives,
or natural family planning,
but I no longer care enough to go back there and look.

Well, it's nice to know you care enough to talk against it.

 

[blackout]

I have, it's an opinion held by many catholics and even some catholic organizations, but that's a long shot from pinning that on the magesterium.

No no. The use of birth-control is considered A MORTAL SIN.

This comes from the top down.

 

[Drolefille]

Where did I bring up "laws related to adoptions"?

And I quote:
"For the time being this will shutdown most all religious adoption agencies (catholic agencies probably being the most in numbers). It was never that they couldn't adopt, it was that they couldn't adopt in a catholic one. Ponder over that for a second. "
You brought it up, I don't know why.

Since you were talking about making straight couples attend church regularly, I assumed you meant catholic straight couples. Specifically the word "regularly" gave me that impression. So naturally I took policing from within as what you were talking about. Mea culpa if that's not what you meant.

CC does not require couples that adopt through their agency to be regular church attendees of any sort, to forswear using birth control in any form, to abstain from fish on friday, etc. And yet they expect couples to follow their rules about homosexuality. It's inconsistent and inappropriate and if that's where they wish to throw down the line and let the agencies lose contracts, I'm fine with it.

It's radiantly obvious your education was nominal at best.

Yeah, no. I'll take my Jesuits any day.

No religioous institution wishes to apply everything and those that they do are not all equal. I suspect you haven't the foggiest idea about the hierarchy of truths is all about (and probably care even less to know now) and how it applies to what you speak of above. In short, all things are not equal, so obviously some things are going to be talked about more then others.

Aw, it's cute when you try and talk down to me.

Obviously some things will be considered more important than others. But the obsessive focus that the American bishops have on gay marriage and abortion to the extent that some have threatened to refuse communion over the issue of abortion based on a congregant's vote - not action but vote - crosses a line. Attempting to turn lay people into single issue voters is not only illogical but also ignores that a pro-war candidate is as bad as a pro-abortion candidate from a theological perspective. One doesn't have to be a liberation theologists to want to support helping the poor and avoiding cuts to services. One issue doesn't a Catholic make, someone who is truly following the doctrines of the church would have a hard time morally voting for any candidate.

Why do I spend so much time talking about votes? Because the politics is what this boils down to. Because the CC doesn't care if an adoptive couple has ever had an abortion - morally murderers in their world view - or are sinning in any number of ways except being gay. This is far more of a symbolic move by the diocese than an honest application of beliefs as a whole. Now certainly there are individuals who are honestly applying their beliefs, but that's micro and I'm talking macro.

Unless of course you plan to completely eliminate religious folks from voting and having opinions to the contrary.

You knocked that strawman right on down, didn't you. Good for you.

 

[Quiddity]

No no. The use of birth-control is considered A MORTAL SIN.

This comes from the top down.

Was this the point you were trying to make in post #263? I could have sworn you were trying to make a connection to marriage.

 

[blackout]

Well, it's nice to know you care enough to talk against it.

Well YOU go look it up and see why it's a mortal sin according to the Catechism.

Surely you have a Catechism sitting right there on your shelf like I used to.


And what am I "talking against"?
I said it was LIKELY in the Catechism.
If you feel the need to prove that it is not,
be my guest.

 

[Drolefille]

I have, it's an opinion held by many catholics and even some catholic organizations, but that's a long shot from pinning that on the magesterium.

Sorry but Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical on the subject.

You're criticizing my education and yet don't know of the Humanae Vitae?

 

[blackout]

Was this the point you were trying to make in post #263? I could have sworn you were trying to make a connection to marriage.

Post #263 speaks for itself.

If you're going to sit here and tell me
that the ban/sanction against birth control
is not rationalized by the RC
by reason of the idea that Birth Control
is harmful to the couple
and to the family,
I have to wonder what RCC you are a part of.
Certainly not the one I was, anyway.

But feel free to prove me wrong.
Perhaps there is some other point I have forgotten.
As a Catholic woman who did not use birth control
in compliance with the doctrine of her church,
I turned to my only alternative- Natural Family Planning.
These classes were taught from a Catholic perspective
FOR Catholics,
and the damage done to couples as a result of the use of birth control,
was taught/presented as the PRIMARY reason for using the method.
(which as I said was the ONLY alternative to birth control
on account OF RCC Doctrine)
NFP was taught as acceptable BECAUSE it did not compromise the marital relationship.

You seem to know otherwise however,
so to set the record straight,
what IS the official reason for the ban against birth control?
WHY is it a mortal sin?

I'm not out to win anything here.
I was a very devout Catholic,
and this is what I was taught.
Also I read the Catechism, and never recal seeing anything contrary,
at the very least.

 

[blackout]

Sorry but Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical on the subject.

You're criticizing my education and yet don't know of the Humanae Vitae?

Ah yes, Humanae Vitae.

My problem in these discussions,
is it's been a number of years,
and I purposely put it all so far behind me,
and out of my head,
that I no longer recall sources
and even which document covered exactly what.

I do think Humanae Vitae was used as a NFP/Natural Family Planning re'source though.
IF memory serves me correctly.

 

[Quiddity]

You brought it up, I don't know why.

How is that bringing up the laws?

CC does not require couples that adopt through their agency to be regular church attendees of any sort, to forswear using birth control in any form, to abstain from fish on friday, etc. And yet they expect couples to follow their rules about homosexuality. It's inconsistent and inappropriate and if that's where they wish to throw down the line and let the agencies lose contracts, I'm fine with it.

How in the world is this inconsistant if you don't even understand how to apply catholic morality? At best you can say we are intolerant, oppressive, or whatever tickles you but inconsistant just smacks of ignorance.

Yeah, no. I'll take my Jesuits any day.

I guess that settles that.

Obviously some things will be considered more important than others. But the obsessive focus that the American bishops have on gay marriage and abortion to the extent that some have threatened to refuse communion over the issue of abortion based on a congregant's vote - not action but vote - crosses a line. Attempting to turn lay people into single issue voters is not only illogical but also ignores that a pro-war candidate is as bad as a pro-abortion candidate from a theological perspective. One doesn't have to be a liberation theologists to want to support helping the poor and avoiding cuts to services. One issue doesn't a Catholic make, someone who is truly following the doctrines of the church would have a hard time morally voting for any candidate.

Why do I spend so much time talking about votes? Because the politics is what this boils down to. Because the CC doesn't care if an adoptive couple has ever had an abortion - morally murderers in their world view - or are sinning in any number of ways except being gay. This is far more of a symbolic move by the diocese than an honest application of beliefs as a whole. Now certainly there are individuals who are honestly applying their beliefs, but that's micro and I'm talking macro.

Well, when sinners is all you have to deal with, I suppose they could just deny everyone, right? Many of these objections you bring up can take a thread all on it's own. I suspect you are confident with your own conclusions and could only care as much as far as it meets your well educated preconceived notions.

If you wish to really break these down, go back to your Jesuit buddies and ask them.

 

[Quiddity]

Post #263 speaks for itself.

If you're going to sit here and tell me
that the ban/sanction against birth control
is not rationalized by the RC
by reason of the idea that Birth Control
is harmful to the couple
and to the family,
I have to wonder what RCC you are a part of.

But feel free to prove me wrong.
Perhaps there is some other point I have forgotten.
As a Catholic woman who did not use birth control
in compliance with the doctrine of her church,
I turned to my only alternative- Natural Family Planning.
These classes were taught from a Catholic perspective
FOR Catholics,
and the damage done to couples was taught/presented
as the PRIMARY reason for using the method.
(which as I said was the ONLY alternative to birth control
on account OF RCC Doctrine)

You seem to know otherwise however,
so to set the record straight,
what IS the official reason for the ban against birth control?
WHY is it a mortal sin?

I'm not out to win anything here.
I was a very devout Catholic,
and this is what I was taught.
Also I read the Catechism, and never recal seeing anything contrary,
at the very least.

There is different levels of teaching authority. I don't wish to bore you with it and I doubt you care.

My objection was simply aimed at your links to marriage as something definitive.

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry but Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical on the subject.

You're criticizing my education and yet don't know of the Humanae Vitae?

Never heard of it. :areyoucra

Thank goodness you're here to set me straight.

 

[blackout]

There is different levels of teaching authority. I don't wish to bore you with it and I doubt you care.

My objection was simply aimed at your links to marriage as something definitive.

I'm not out to make false statements.