"Putting the Rights of Adults Over the Needs of Children"
Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 10:27AM Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Boston has closed its adoption agency in Massachusetts this week because of a state law requiring the agency to place children in same-sex households. A statement from Father J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, said:
"The world was very different when (Catholic) Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th-century. The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. In spite of much effort and analysis, Catholic Charities of Boston finds that it cannot reconcile the teaching of the church, which guides our work, and the statutes and regulations of the commonwealth. The issue is adoption to same-sex couples, and we realize that for many it is a sensitive, deeply felt issue of conscience.
"Catholic Charities in the United States is an agency exercising constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom that has stepped forward to provide placement for orphaned children.
"Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise (that) religious freedom.”
Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state’s anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services. "This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children," Romney said in a statement. "It’s a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children.
The bishops of the four Catholic dioceses in Massachusetts said in a Feb. 28 statement that if Catholic agencies were required to help same-sex couples adopt children in violation of church teaching prohibiting the practice it would present "a serious pastoral problem" and threaten religious freedom.
"We are asking the commonwealth to respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and allow the Catholic Church to continue serving children in need of adoption without violating the tenets of our faith," the bishops said.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/408820
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (56)
Is Massachussetts a sorry example of a state, or what? Kerry and Kennedy as Senators. Same-sex marriage. Now adoptions to same-sex couples. ARRRRGGGGHHHH!! It makes me just want to scream... (or maybe you already picked up on that).
Regards...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/
0,6903,1469055,00.html
Gay is becoming synonymous with evil, trying to destroy the institution of marriage and now keeping children from being adopted by caring parents.
Certainly that would seem to be the theocratic agenda....
However, this Governor seems like a good guy (being from MA makes me suspicious about how Republican he really is) and his emergency bill to allow Religious organizations to be exempt from violating themselves can only be a plus. There are still state agencies and other private agencies that same-sex couples can go to to adopt children beside the Catholic Charities.
"Political Correctness is a jealous god indeed." (M.D.)
Grumpy, how appropriate your user name! How is the Church NOT accountable to the state? What is illegal about the Church deciding not to be forced to offend it's God by the dictates of the state? Your comment about the Pope is ignorant. Yes, Pope Benedict is committing illegal activity and getting away with it... were you perhaps a spokesperson for the Clinton Administration?
Clearly one of the issues here is religious freedom. State governments have been, through various liberal groups, trying to allow for teachers in violation of Church teaching to teach in religious schools.. like gay teachers or Muslim teachers, which is a violation of the Church's policy. This is a battle ultimately the Church will win, one way or another, because we have protection from the State under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Jez, this isn't about past sin, it's about violation of current Catholic policy (2000 years of docrtine). This is the official Church teaching about homosexuality from the Catholic Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV
Chastity and homosexuality
2357- Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.
2358- 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 they may encounter from their condition.
2359- 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."
With that said, the Catholic Charities wouldn't grant adoption to a couple living together and not married, or to an alcoholic, or to a single mother. The idea is the IDEAL: that a child be raised with the benefit of both a MOTHER and a FATHER, which is best for the child. Why in the world would Catholic Charities put a child into any "sinful" environment one way or the other?
The Church says homosexual ACTIVITY is sinful, not the homosexual himself, as it were. So to adopt a child out to a couple activity participating in what the Church considers an immoral lifestyle is simply impossible.
Surely this make sense.
If you had bothered to follow the link I gave you, it had to do with Ratzinger's complicity in covering up the rapes of young boys. You know, conspiracy to commit, aiding and abetting, that silly stuff. Many clergy fled the country to avoid our laws regarding such things, no?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html
might work, if not paste the first line then the second line into the address window.
It talks about a letter signed by the now-Pope in 2001 talking about the preference for secrecy in priest abuse cases, claiming the Church's jurisdiction out-ranks that of state police forces. I believe the Church's current position has shifted to one of cooperation with ordinary law enforcement agencies. The letter suggests that the period of secrecy should last until the minor involved was 28 years old. At the time of the artical (2004) the Vatican was not forthcoming with any explanation.
While I disagree with this most sternly, it is certainly possible that Ratzinger's letter is genuinely concerned purely with the matter of jurisdiction, and that he did not wish to hush up allegations or protect deviant priests.
April 24, 2005
Nice try, fart. First, you have to have some understanding of the story before trying to hang Catholicism with it. Secondly, this was a letter sent by Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict. The confidential letter from Cardinal Ratzinger sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001, FOUR years before he became Pope.
In the letter, then Cardinal Ratzinger described the issue as 'concerning very grave sins'. The Cardinal in no way minimized the gravity of the offenses; to the contrary. Also, the letter talked about the church's position on a A NUMBER OF MATTERS ranging from celebrating the Eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'.
" 'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication. "
THIS IS RELATING TO CHURCH LAW, NOT CIVIL OR STATE LAW.
THIS is the crux of the issue: one of the involved bishops said:
'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded.'
What was being discussed in this letter was the obligation of a bishop to turn in a priest who has admitted the crime. There are several things to keep in mind. 1) the victim SHOULD turn the priest in and the priest SHOULD turn himself in. The Vatican has no authority or desire to halt criminal investigations or proceedings. 2) What is said in the confessional, stays in the confessional. This isn’t a matter of a priest confessing to a crime in normal conversation, but in confession. Priests/Bishops/Cardinals/Popes are obligated by the secrecy of the confession, much like a doctor/patient privilege. Of course the patient SHOULD tell his wife he has cancer, but the doctor cannot FORCE him to do so. He is bound by a code of ethics.
This is a very troublesome and painstaking situation for the confessor (priest hearing the confession). He is bound by Church Law in the same way a doctor is bound by ethical law. A confessor often does (I’m not there personally, but priest friends tell me they would) urge the guilty party to turn himself in . BUT, he cannot turn the confessed in himself. The fault lies squarely on the abuser, not the priest hearing confession, or the Bishop. The abuser who tries to take advantage of the grace afforded him in the confessional is….. I cannot even say what I’m thinking about such persons. They deserve nothing less than hell.
Pope Benedict, while Cardinal, was in charge of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, whose entire purpose in life is to “defend the Church from heresy”.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_en.html
Safeguarding the truth of the Church was Cardinal Ratzinger’s purpose from 1981-2005 when he left the office to become Pope. He has NO interest whatsoever in defending guilty abusers or to prevent the law from taking its course. Pope Benedict has spoken out frequently in his year as Pope against the horrors of abuse of children by clergy. This is a sophisticated matter of Church Law as it relates to the secrecy of the confessional.
So this has nothing to do with trying to be above the law and the assertion is ignorant, with all due respect.
It seems to me that the Catholic Church's opinion on the current subject as well as many others may be safely ignored.
An annulment is rare; it is granted only when proven fraud or duress, or that a valid marriage never took place (again, usually goes back to fraud or duress). Even civil law allows for that. Have you heard of civil annulments (like... Britney Spears?) I'm not endorsing or justifying annulments one way or the other, but rather am pointing out that they are valid within the church as they are within each state.
The Catholic Church does not hoard wealth. Go into the poor section of your town and look for the Catholic soup kitchen, outreaches, orphanages, homeless shelters and domestic abuse centers. They're there. If you are referring to the beauty of cathedrals, we Catholics believe God is worth the effort: Jesus said when reprimanded by Judas the disciple (who was also the treasurer of the disciples) about expensive perfume a woman anointed Jesus' feet with, "She has anointed my feet for burial... the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." We think it entirely appropriate to have beautiful Churches, but not at the expense of charity. Because Catholics are generous, we can do both. Do you give? Do you support the poor and feed the hungry? I hope so.
Also, Catholicism is a direct offspring of Judiasm. In the Old Testament, God specifically instructs the Jews how to furnish His temple, and it ain't chinsy.
Divorced Catholics can and do take communion. You may be referring to remarried Catholics who have not had their old marriage annuled. Again, this is an exception, not the rule.
That being said, this is the theology behind the indissolubility of marriage:
I Corinthians 7 is a letter from St. Paul about marriage. In verses 10-16 he speaks about separation and divorce.
vs. 10: "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that he wife should not leave her husband.
vs. 11: "But if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband. The husband should not send his wife away."
vs. 14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her husband: for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy."
vs. 16: "For how do you know, o wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, o husband, whether you will save your wife?"
vs. 39: "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives/ but if her husband is dead, she is free to remarry whom she wishes, in the Lord."
This supports the doctrine Paul wrote about in vs. 11 in which he said, "But if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else reconciled to her husband." Paul is speaking with the authority of God. Divorce is permissible under some circumstances (I Corin. 7:15), but remarriage is not until the death of the spouse. Remember Jesus' statement to the Pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:6:
"Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
With this, although to divorce is sad, it does not prevent one from taking communion. but the remarriage of such an individual means, according to Christ, that he is in a state of adultery (still being married in the Church to the first wife). If an annulement is granted, it permits remarriage. If not and the person remarries anyway, he would be in a state of mortal sin and should not be given communion. It's that simple, whether you agree or not.
You're joking, right? Keeping the secret until the age of majority +10 years is a canonical thing? Some God given rule? It clearly relates to one thing, and one thing only. The avoidance of civil and/or criminal liability.
This "letter" does not interfere with an abuse victim from prosecuting an abuser. The state should prosecute any abuser to the fullest extent of the law whether he's a priest, bishop or pope.
Over 80% (as I've outlined repeatedly in other places on this blog) of all child abuse cases in the Church are at the hands of gay priests on minor boys. Get rid of gay priests and 80% of the problem is gone. Also, this abuse happens by about 1.3% of priests, which is a very low rate of abusers. One abuse case is too many, but I'm just qualifying the facts.
Again, this is a Church issue about releasing publicly information about these cases. This does not speak to the legal and civil aspects of the cases. I am not sure what the 10 year thing is about, but with everything else the church does, it's not without a reason. I don't know what the reason is, but I can research it.
Hope this helps.
Yes Amy, please do research. I'm sure it's something scriptural about why the church has to cover up knowledge of abuse until 10 years after the abused minor gains majority...lol.
If you want to factually disclose information about "coverups", be my guest. I'm sure you know a lot about scripture yourself? That's what I thought.
Did you not hear a thing I said? You're making a mountain out of a molehill. 1.3% of all priests are involved in abuse cases. The Church is made up of people from the general population. The overwhelming majority of priests, bishops and cardinals are exemplary men. It is the gay men in the priesthood causting the trouble.
The Church has an obligation to investigate thoroughly these cases. They don't have an obligation to open up their findings to the public. THIS DOES NOT RESTRICT A VICTIM FROM BRINING SUIT AGAINST AN ABUSER OR FROM THE STATE IN BRINGING CHARGES AGAINST THE ABUSER. So what's your real beef? Are you for parental notification in abortion for minors? If you are, you're a total hypocrite.
I'm trying to be nice, THE ORDER TO FATHER CONFESSORS TO COVER UP CRIMES COMMITTED BY A PRIEST UNTIL THE LONG AFTER THE ABUSED MINOR, OR AUTHORITES, CAN DO MUCH IS ABOUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE.
By the way, I have read the bible. As you should know, most athiests have actually read more of it than your average joe six pew. There ain't no 18+10 rule regarding cover=ups of child abuse in there.
The Pope is brilliant. I'm reading 2 of his books right now. He doesn't believe in cover ups or child abuse. Move on, bro....
You cannot produce anything other than a conspiracy "cover up" theory.
So what is the theory behind the 18+10 rule then jez? Why did Ratz tie the statute of limitations on the "sanctity of the confessional" to the age of the victim in this manner?
A little loose in the logic department there, no?
Then, last October, the Boston Globe found out about these same-sex adoptions and the Church decided to conduct a study and figure things out by January. In December, the board of Catholic Charities of Boston voted unanimously to continue placement in same-sex households. But the four bishops decided the opposite. Seven of those board members actually resigned over the issue. So it's not just a fight with the government, it's a squabble with the lay Catholics working for CCB too.
Also, CCB accepts public funds. Can't we make an analogy with the university/US military case and say if they accept public funds, they should follow the public's rules? (Sidebar: So many of you suggested that if universities didn't want recruiters on campus they should stop taking public money. Guess you didn't read the whole decision, because Roberts explicitly says that wouldn't get them out of it.)
You're beating a dead horse. I think it's time to move on from the "10 year rule" discourse. Most issues of confidentiality (as I have painstakingly outlined) have a lifetime gurantee.
Nicole, if what you're saying is true, it's a great thing that the Church did a 180 and stopped putting children in gay homes. I cannot imagine the Church or Catholic Charities doing so, but the CC is not the Church itself; sometimes these organizations have an agenda outside the Church, but I have never known this to be the case with CC.
I'll reiterate what I put in the original post:
******************************
A statement from Father J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, said:
"The world was very different when (Catholic) Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th-century. The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. In spite of much effort and analysis, Catholic Charities of Boston finds that it cannot reconcile the teaching of the church, which guides our work, and the statutes and regulations of the commonwealth. The issue is adoption to same-sex couples, and we realize that for many it is a sensitive, deeply felt issue of conscience.
"Catholic Charities in the United States is an agency exercising constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom that has stepped forward to provide placement for orphaned children.
"Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise (that) religious freedom.”
********************************
This seems inconsistent with what you're saying, that CC has been placing children in gay homes. It's also totally in opposition to the Church. Do you have a link or documentation? I'd be interested to read more.
Also, you said: "CCB accepts public funds". The archbishop of Boston said in a Feb. statement: "Catholic Charities will fulfill its contract obligations to the state while it prepares to withdraw from adoption services."
The CC HAS been "playing by the states rules", which is what the dilemma is really all about. And as you can see, it is withdrawing from the process.
Where did I do this?
"I think it's time to move on from the "10 year rule" discourse."
Well, that's certainly understandable from your standpoint. It's got to be uncomfortable for you to not have a clue why this rule was instituted....
Moving on......
Since you are the one obsessed with the "10 year" jurisdiction letter, it's up to you to make the point, not me. It's not uncomfortable for ME... in fact, I am assured by the fact that I know and trust my Church and that the Pope reputation is above reproach. Would 5 years be better? 1 year? I suspect your dislike for the Church is all you need to condemn Her and how many years the Church decides how to handle its OWN cases is up to her. You're welcomed to explore it further. It's irrelevant and I don't have time to repeat myself.
"The 42-member board unanimously voted in December in favor of continuing gay adoptions at Catholic Charities..."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/
articles/2006/03/02/
seven_quit_charity_over_policy_of_bishops/
"The course the Bishops have charted threatens the very essence of our Christian mission. For the sake of the poor we serve, we pray they will reconsider."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/national/
main1361889.shtml
Good riddance. The board members, made up of prominent business and media leaders, announced their resignations yesterday....
They should go join the floundering Episcopal Church where open homosexuality is embrace. Of course, the Church as a result is going broke, the bishop in alcohol rehab and the church virtually split in two, but hey! There's progression for you.
The Catholic Church is what it is. If you don't want to be a Catholic, don't. The last thing the Church needs is more quasi-Catholics watering down the message of Christ. There are plenty of other denominations that can do that.
I also think the members did the right thing stepping down instead of trying to change the Church, which cannot be done. Established doctrine is just that: established and unchangable.
I'm fully aware that the CCB is not the Church and does not necessarily follow Church doctrine -- this is why the bishops are stepping in. I also believe that if the board members disagree with doctrine, they probably shouldn't be running a Catholic organization.
I do feel for them though. In nineteen years, they have placed thirteen children in same-sex households. All of the children were in foster care, had developmental problems, and were older than adoptees typically are. So I don't really think they had an agenda per se, I think twenty years ago they decided to quietly comply with the law and just make the best of it.
I also think the bishops were right to seek legislative changes. I don't think a religious organization (including schools, etc) should have to compromise its principles. But I do think some of the reporting is misleading. State legislators are getting slammed in religious media for a decades-old law that only became an issue because the Globe dug up a story embarassing to the Church. And I'm sure you know, as a Massachusetts native, that emotions are still running high there after the abuse scandals. This is why the legislators are reluctant to touch it now, and it's also why the bishops are so intent on making a stand on doctrine and orthodoxy. (Let me be very clear: the abuse is completely irrelevant to this issue except insofar as many people in Massachusetts have become disillusioned and disappointed in the Church.)
What I'm still unclear on is how accountable the CCB is to the Church. They have their own board voting on issues like this, but are they actually in control?
Oh, and grumpy posted the link to the Boston Globe article I was going to send you to. Meant to include it in the first post but forgot.
Actually, Nicole, Roberts was refering to the Constitutional right to raise and support armies. I don't see how gay "rights" fits in here.
Check out the ruling at
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06Mar20061300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1152.pdf
It can be found at:
www.supremecourtus.gov
So there were a few bad priests, does that mean all priests are prone to pediphilia? No, of course not! Let it go.
Everyone's main concern should be for the welfare of these precious little children who do not have homes and I applaud the Catholic Church for standing up for what is right. Bravo!
Jez you said, " Presumably the catholic charity understood that whomever accepted adopted babies in the past were sinners. Why is the sin of being gay different?"
Most Christian churches aka, Catholics, non-denominational, etc. Believe what the Bible teaches regarding homosexuality. So, why should this wonderful institution back down from their beliefs just to satisfy a subversive group of arrogant people?
Meg, I'm sad to read your comment:
"The Catholic Church has put the rights of adults before the needs of children in the very recent past. Its reaction to pedophile priests was so shameful that the church now has very little moral high ground when it comes to issues like these."
I will NEVER condone abuse, ever. Period. But to suggest the Church has put the rights of adults over those of children is an outright lie. Have you ever heard of Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Mercy? Have you heard of the millions of Catholics in religious life who go into the poorest countries to feed and save children? Have you not heard that the Catholic Church is arguably the world's most strident opponent of abortion, the MURDER OF CHILDREN?
There's no point in going on. You believe what you want because it suits your needs. So be it. The whole reason this story is a story is because the Church is refusing to put the desires of gay couples over the needs of children TO BE RAISED BY BOTH A MOTHER AND A FATHER, not two mommies or two daddies.
You're wrong on this issue. The Church has far more "moral high ground" than you're admitting to. 1.3% of the priest population does NOT make up the entire Church. If you stick to this argument, you're going to have a hard time defending the Democratic party.
We're all sinners. Why is the gay thing the only sin which should disqualify one from adopting. No-one's addressed the uniqueness of being gay.
There is another question about enabline faith-based organisations to be exampt from the civil standards of the host nation. Freedom of religion is not absolute, just like freedom of speech is not absolute. There must be boundaries.
Perhaps this highlights a problem with relying on faith-groups too much. I know that our governments are keen to promote them and fund them, but there are many occassions where they fail to meet the moral standards of the day.
Bet: First of all, one must take into consideration the church's position on Homosexual activity. She believes it is intrinsically wrong. She gets this position from scripture itself. One example can be found in Romans 1-24-32
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
uncleanness Matt 23:27, Rom 6:19, 2nd Cor 6:17, 2nd Cor 12:21, Gal 5:19, Eph 4:19, Eph 5:3, Eph 5:5, Col 3:5, 1st Thess 4:7
bodies 1st Cor 6:18, 1st Thess 4:4
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
pleasure Psa 10:3, 1st Cor 13:6
So, you ask why is the sin of being Gay different. Well, BEING gay wouldn't really be the issue, it is the acting out of a homosexual lifestyle that is really the issue. Unless a "couple" is going to live as , sibling and sibling, in this case, don't you think that a child will be influenced by their gestures, attitude, etc, into thinking that homosexual behavior is OK? As far as the church goes it's NOT OK, so why put children in a home where they will be bombarded with something the church does not approve of?
Bet, most people don't have a desire to continue to sin. Most try to NOT sin. Do you think homosexuals who adopt are going to stop living the lifestyle? Or do you feel that most who live that lifestyle and want to adopt will expose the children to what they feel is only natural?
If we admit that "being" gay is not the sin, then what are we really concerned with here? What is the homosexual "behaviour" that you are really concerned with here Bet?
A gay individual or couple that is loving, caring, nurturing and financially able to support an abandoned child is disqualified because of their "gestures, attitude, etc,"?
The state does not have the right to force the Church to do something against it's own conscience. Let the state adoption agencies give children to "loving, caring, nurturing" families.
People with no principles find this hard to follow.
However, if it were a doctrinal issue, Catholic Charities would have every right to deny adoption to any such couples. The point being that the State cannot force a religious organization, church or charity to violate it's own docrtinal and moral objectives.
Of course, the Church adopts out to non-Christians so this clearly isn't an issue; one Christian one non-Christian mixed couple is an irrelevant issue.
A gay individual or couple that is loving, caring, nurturing and financially able to support an abandoned child is disqualified because of their "gestures, attitude, etc,"
Bet: What do you mean, "What is the homosexual behavior that you are really concerned with?" Perhaps this will clear it up. Does an average heterosexual parent, kiss, hug or show affection to his/her significant other? In other words, at some point in time, doesn't a child pick up on the difference between say a hug and kiss one gives a friend, and a hug/kiss/ affection one gives their significant other? So, unless one is going to say that a homosexual "couple" who adopts is going to live a completely chaste sibling type of relationship, then don't you think that some affection is going to be displayed? And let's be real, as a child grows and learns the birds and the bees, well let's just say, children aren't stupid, they KNOW what goes on. So, again since the church feels homosexual relationships are immoral, WHY should a child be put into an "immoral" situation where they will be "taught" that what they are seeing is "normal". It isn't, as some turn this into, sex in front of the kids. No, I don't think MOST parents have "sex" in front of the kids, but that doesn't mean they aren't learning what "relationships" encompass. I applaud the Catholic charities for adhering to the church's teaching rather than simply going the PC route.