AP: Boston Catholic Charities Halts All Adoptions

BOSTON - The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.

The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.

"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, said in a joint statement with trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb. "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," they said.

Gov. Mitt Romney 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_re_us/gay_adoption

So would they rather them be with an abusive parent who is addicted to drugs and could end up running away or with a loving home? Me? I'd say a loving home. All that should matter is the enviornment the kid will grow up in.

of themselves. That's why my lesbian sister is the guardian of my children, and not my fundie in-laws. I know this post is about adoption, but just my 2 cents.

I don't like this precedent I must say.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

message as hard as they can.

this is just one more example.

notice -- that catholic charities in this case wants to separate themselve out from every one else.

that should give you an idea about what conservative christians want.

Should a church be forced to act against the principles it believes in?

They are doing the right thing in just getting out of the business.

conservative christians are trying to set up a society within the society -- where they are special -- more special than everyone else.

this is going to make severe problems -- a little like the boy scouts blown way, way out of proportion.

If you choose to live to a different standard than your neighbors, doesn't that seperate you out to a certain extent?

Bryant

that bends things for everyone -- they aren't the amish.

they know they are going to force everyone through their funnel to one degree or another whether they like it or not.

and that is why there are no {conservative or liberal} moderates in the current context.

children with homosexual parents (regardless of whether this conflics with their beliefs)?

I guess maybe I don't understand that policy - certainly I appreciate that they will fight to keep other charities and governmental adoption agencies from placing kids with homosexuals - and I understand your objection to that.

On edit - This story is worded confusingly. It seems to imply that the current statute explicitely requires this catholic charity to place children with gay parents (or suffer law suits). On the other hand it's possible that this is a sort of preemptive strike against this statute, that actually does not require them to place children with gay parents (but merely allows them too).

they are not trying -- and you know this -- to find a ground that is safe for just their beliefs.

you of course are willing to sit through periods of irrational extremism to wait for the publics pendulum to swing.

no matter the harm.

I don't know how to respond to this.

Shoudl i go on the defensive? Screw that.

The truth is I am trying to balance two values - one is freedom of religion, and the other is tolerance and non-discrimination. You are jettisoning religious freedom to get what you want.

Bryant

don't align with.

they have no constitutional mandate to be in the adoption business.

They CHOOSE to be in the adoption business.

If the state makes a law that prohibits bigotry and discrimination in adoption proceedings, then the Church decides:

a) to obey the law like the rest of society

or

b) to pull out of the adoption business.


Very simple, really.

Or atheist parents?

Or Jewish parents?

Or Wiccan parents?

Does the Church have the right to supercede anti-discrimination laws?

If a catholic birth mother goes to her church and asks for specifically catholic parents to raise her child, should she be allowed to do that? Or are her wishes meaningless?

She's giving up her baby.

I ask again....why should the Church be exempt from anti-discrimination laws?

The answer is they should be exempt from any law which encrouches on their freedom to practice their religion, within reason. Obviously the holy church of punching people for no reason should go to jail. On the other hand if the pork farmers of America rammed through a law requiring at least one serving of pork a week, well, I would expect either an exemption for Muslims and Jews or I would expect a lot of civil disobedience.

In this case, there are organizations that allow placement in gay families. And there are some that do not. I'm not sure I see the necessity in forcing the churches to provide a service that is already being provided by other organizations.

The application is Gay Marriage. Once the state says that gays can get marriaged, what is to stop anti-discrimination laws from being used to club churches into marrying gays?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

who said anything about forcing the Church to perform same-sex marriages? The laws before the states right now only deal with the legal recognition of a same sex union on par with a heterosexual union....it has nothing to do with where they're performed and certainly does not force churches to perform them.

You can bring up all the extreme scenarios you'd like, but you still haven't answered my question....if the Church is going to involve itself in a civic action (adoption services), why should they be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws on the books specifically to protect those against whom the Church would discriminate?

Marriage is a civic action (i would argue it shouldn't be, but it certainly is now). You need a marriage liscence to perform it. Once gay marriage is legalized there could very well be people who are going to use this exact argument to suggest that Churches be forced to provide this service to them.

It's not an extreme scenario either, could happen in the next couple of years.

The answer to your question is freedom of religion. Perhaps freedom of religion has no value to you - but it is in the constitution and unless you can amend it out of their, well, it's going to complicate this issue.

A catholic charity provides adoption services, and, because of their religious beliefs, does not wish to adopt out children to parents who will not live up to catholic standards (you could say the same about any number of religions). For these people, apparently (I haven't ruled out the possibility that this is a stunt on the church's part), they feel that if they keep providing these services they will run afoul of the law.

I know that if I had a child I had to put up for adoption, I would want him raised in the standards of my faith, and would seek an organization that would do that.

Bryant

A church service is purely the business of the church.

Adoption is a licenssed service with obligations to the state and its residents.

two women?

Should such behaivor be allowed by the law?

Bryant

Who cares?

Adoption is a state regulated business/service.

charm.

Marriages are liscensed by the state. The condition of being marriage involves a whole host of legal distinctions - including inheritance and hospital visits.

At any rate, whatever - Churches should be allowed to discriminate against those who do not hold to the values of their religion.

Bryant

religious ceremonies.

You can have a religious ceremony without benefit of state sanction (or the legal benefits associated with it). You can have a civil marriage without religion.

The state regulates ONLY the civil aspects of marriage.

Churches are allowed to discriminate in their own functions -- but not in administering state business like adoption.

want their children to go to?

Bryant

individuals.

If they work with an agency in which they choose the adoptive parents they can choose anyone they like that meets approval for adoption.

But the agency contracts with the state. Very different thing.

Caters to membes of the catholic community who want kids raised in traditional families. Technically they would allow homosexuals to file for adoptiosn with them, but givin the wishes of the birth mothers, homosexuals will never be able to recieve an adoption through them.

Is that satisfactory?

Bryant

are involved in placement through this particular service.

Edit to add: you might want to forget the assumption about the women who use this servivce -- I know a lesbian couple who adopted through a religion based service in an open adoption and the birth mother chose them.

That's why thee are so many of them.

How would you tell discriminatory policies? Beyond the obvious "Your gay? Well you can't fill out an application then." Assuming they will "take" applications from homosexuals, is that all an agency would have to do to comply with this law?

It was a hypothetical in the last question by the way.

You might pick that up if you read some of the posts from Catholics on DU.

If you're suggesting there's no way to determine if discrimination exists, you might as well abandon all laws regarding discrimination.

One wayy you could tell in this case is if qualified gay applicants are passed over for available children by the agency - and since this service is focused on hard to place children that should be pretty easy to track.

At any rate you answered the question - if an agency failed to place kids with gay parents, regardless of the wishes of the birth parents, they would suffer consequences.

Bryant

Agencies work in different ways.

In some the agency makes the placement. Sometimes the birth parent(s) is more responsible for the selection.

If the agency is placing the kids they must abide by state regulation. They can't discriminate nor can they discriminate on behalf of the birth parent(s). And remember, once the birth parent(s) surrender a child they have no more say.

If this agency is placing hard to place kids it's extremely unlikely that the parents are making the placement. Instead the kids are likely wards of the state, and are being placed by the agency which must comply with the state regulations.

they are responsible for finding the parents themselves, and any agency who helps them can be prosecuted for discrimination?

Bryant

Some agencies essentially facilitate a parent placing a child with adoptive parents. They screen potential adoptive parents and present the choices to the bio parent. That agency can't discriminate.

More traditionally a parent simply surrenders a child, which then is in the custody of the state. The state is responsible for placing the child, and the bio parents no longer have anything to say about placement - they already placed the child with the state.

In the facilitator model a bio parent may say "I want to place my baby with someone as much like me as possible" and they can review the available applicants, they can choose one based on whatever they like, or they can change their mind and not surrender the child.

But they don't get to direct the state on what to do with a child they surrender to it, any more than they can direct the adoptive parents on what to do. When you surrender a child, you surrender your say in its future.

But whatever.

State adoption agencies aren't agents of biological parents. They are custodians of children surrended to the state, and are obliged to act in their best interest, not cater to those who surrender them.

This particular agency was focused on placing special needs kidss already custodians of the state, so there are no biological parents involved in the decision making.

By the way, brilliant use of "whatever".

Or are they required to be liscensed by the state?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

for placement as well -- there are a number of options available to people surrendering a child, and not all are the same.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

There are different options.

In only the most traditional would the parent(s) surrender all choice of their own.

But a parent surrendering a child is neither a business nor a licensed service provider.

My guess is that most of those who would place their children through the church would not want thier child going to homosexual parents - so the church takes the names of homosexual parents, but since most if not all of their adoptees can't go to homosexual parents . . . would they fall afoul of the law?

Bryant

choice for yourself.

If you leave the choice in the hands of the agency, you're done at the point of surrender.

If the church wants to participate in a state regulated business, they should expect to meet those regulations.

but what exactly IS included in anti-discrimination legislation? Obviously race. Is religion? Is sexual orientation? Is gender?

Or are we still waiting for that?

the adoption business.

Just like pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions.

The Church should not be forced to violate its sacred tenets...by the same token, we shouldn't move the goalposts to accomodate the Church's discriminatory practices either.

It's not that hard.

Kids that no one else wanted and it's worked well, as two of the board members that resigned have stated.

If they charge a penny for adoptions services, they are a business and they cannot discriminate, IMHO. The Catholic Charities in Baltimore charges $7000-$15,000 for adoptions.

about 700 kids in a decade or more. The State does the heavy work. It probably won't matter much in the general picture. Someone without the theological constraints will move in and fill up the vacuum.

Are they going to investigate every house they place a youth in to make sure meat isn't served on Fridays during Lent?

Well, that would be ridiculous, you might say. I agree...so is this.

One part of me says "Fantastic...get out of the adoption business, you hypocritical pedophile-protecting assholes", but another part knows that this will have a deep impact on the lives of the children who could have been helped by them.

of providing a service they should get out of the business.

organizations should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The religious organizations should not be practicing discrimination but I'm afraid they are some of the biggest offenders.

Kids are going to be homeless now thanks to Catholics' religious beliefs. And yes, it is because of their religious beliefs.

Remember this the next time someone tells you we should respect all religious beliefs.

trouble, both financially and legally, because of priest-molesters?

Sure, let pedophiles run your youth programs, but deny an orphaned child a home. Makes sense to me.

And what the fuck is Romney doing as Governor of Massachusettes anyway? That's like Ted Kennedy being governor of South Dakota.

That it's our fault for "favoring" the rights of adults over children. They need to get the fuck back in the Pilgrim boat and get their asses back to England.

How do they get away with this?

For example, my husband and I saw an advertisement for an adoption agency. They gave requirements for the prospective parents including an age range for both parents and required that the prospective parents have been married for at least two years.
This ad suggested that they would not allow anyone who did not meet those requirements to adopt through their agency.
I am not saying that homosexuals or anyone else should be prohibited from adopting. I just thought that agencies were allowed to set their own requirements.

... they're writing themselves out of the script of the future, becoming completely irrelevant to anything in the real world. Religion historically does this - then they get all upset 100s of years later, wondering why nobody pays attention to them.

and then a few more 100s of years later, they actually get around to apologizing.

idiots.

lst hand the dark, dark underbelly of hierarchy of Catholic Church. The Cath. Church in my AZ. town has a wonderful Gay priest whom everyone loves.

:puke:

I really hate organized religion. :grr:

It's time that we start actively protesting the right wingers for proposing such a law. I am tired of these sick and evil people, who care more about an embryo than a living breathing human being, involve themselves in our government.

These adoptions are worth at least $30K each to them; considering their current legal woes and the penalties levied against them, you'd think they'd up their baby brokering to avoid selling off property.

:eyes:

Could I have some more? No? Alright then...as long as you don't place me with two homos.

This time, the state is dictating to the church in this chapter of church-state confict. This is what the Founding Fathers warned us against: government meddling in religious affairs, and not just religious meddling in governmental affairs.

Since homosexuality (by practicing GLBT's) is in violation of the teachings of the Catholic Church, the church is being told to choose between violating their teachings and violating the law. IMO, it's bad law to force religious people to act against their conscience. Whether or not the church appears to "discriminate" is beside the point.

This law that forces the church to accept gays as potential adoptive parents is the flip side of oppressive laws such as Jim Crow and punishing girls, but not boys, as delinquents for having sex.

show me where in the constitution it states: Religious organizations must choose where orphaned children grow up.

state. Contract work - thus state work. Govt has the right to dictate the guidelines of work done for the state.

The church isn't forced to run an adoption agency - that's their choice.

If you want to work in a state regulated business you need to comply with state regulation.

If the regulations conflict with your conscience don't get involved.

If the state were somehow forcing the church to ordain gay clergy, or some such, then it would be forcing the church to act against its bigoted, stupid "conscience". AFAIK, though, contracting with the state to provide adoption services is not a central tenet of Catholic belief or conscience.

The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing blacks to adopt children.

Would some of you who are defending "freedom of religion" still defend the Church?

I have read elsewhere. I think it is the CDF, with Archbishop Leveda, former head of the San Fran Archdiocese who has taken over Ratingzer (Ben XVI)'s job.

Yes, adoptions are optional for churches, but the 17 or so homosexual couples adoptive kids were placed with over the past 20-25yrs were often ones others rejected with emotional problems and/or serious handicaps.

I have no problems with homosexuals adopting kids as long as they pass the same tests as everyone else.

Do you think any of these people ever GET the things Jesus said?