Catholics face moral dilemma over gay adoption
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Sheri - 15 Mar 2006 01:09 GMT Catholics face moral dilemma over gay adoption http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/us_nm/religion_usa_dc_1
By Jason Szep Mon Mar 13, 6:04 PM ET
BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Catholics, already divided over the
Vatican's ban on homosexuals in seminaries, could soon face another polarizing question: should Catholic charities stand together against gay adoption?
The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities' decision on Friday to end its century-old adoption service rather than comply with state law allowing gays to adopt children is fueling debate in Massachusetts, a state that is both a bastion of Catholicism and a trailblazer in gay rights.
San Francisco's Catholic Archdiocese said on Monday it was also reviewing its practice of allowing gay adoption through its social service agency after receiving an e-mail opposing it from a former archbishop, who is now a top Vatican official.
A tough stand on gay adoption, while sure to rally traditionalists for upholding Vatican teachings, could alienate liberal Catholics and further choke funding at a time when many U.S. dioceses are under financial stress from declining attendance and multimillion-dollar lawsuits in sex-abuse scandals, religious scholars say.
It adds to the list of sensitive issues -- from abortion to stem-cell research and emergency contraception -- separating reformers and conservatives among America's 65 million Catholics.
"For some Catholics, this position on gay adoption will be disconcerting. But for those seeking a more conservative path, it will be a good thing," said Chester Gillis, chair of the theology department at Georgetown University.
"For those who take their cues from American society, American laws and so forth, they will be uncomfortable with this. They will be forced in some way to choose between their church and their country or their state."
STRUGGLE FOR MORAL AUTHORITY
It is unclear whether other Catholic charities will follow the lead of the Boston Archdiocese's social services arm, which handles 31 percent of adoptions in the state.
California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to jointly petition to adopt children, along with Massachusetts, whose lawmakers have been at odds with Catholic leaders since it legalized gay marriage in 2004.
In Boston, the announcement was seen by some as a sign of renewal in Boston's Archdiocese, which has struggled to regain moral authority after a pedophile priest scandal in 2002 forced the nation's fourth-largest diocese to shut more than 60 churches to raise money.
"It's a sign of the strength of the archdiocese and its remarkable strength in spite of the fact that it has gone through two major crises -- one over clerical sexual abuse and the second over the closing of the parishes in Boston," said Stephen Pope, a theology professor at Boston College.
In December, Catholic Charities' 42-member board voted unanimously in support of same-sex adoptions. The about-face came after eight board members abruptly resigned following efforts by the state's four bishops to ban Catholic social service agencies from conducting adoptions by gay couples.
"Does this reflect the Catholic Church's ability to impose itself on all its constituent parts, well to a certain extent yes, given the board's position," said Nancy Ammerman, professor of sociology and religion at Boston University.
The end of Boston's 103-year-old Catholic Charities' founding mission of finding homes for troubled children comes amid a Vatican campaign against homosexuality, including a ban imposed in November on most gays from entering seminaries.
In 2003, Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a stern document that said allowing children to be adopted by same-sex couples "would actually mean doing violence to these children" and was "gravely immoral."
Catholic scholars said a question for Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley, who was recently elevated to cardinal, is whether the appeal to conservative Catholics will jeopardize millions of dollars in donations at a time when the Boston Archdiocese faces a $93 million bill to settle sex-abuse cases.
"They may lose some private funding," said Pope.
wendy - 15 Mar 2006 01:52 GMT Why is the gov't telling the church what to do in the first place? I thought there was a separation between church and state? Or did I miss a memo?
If Catholic Charities doesn't want homosexuals adopting, who cares? Why should the gov't be able to tell them what to do?
Don't get me wrong, I think homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else. They should be able to get married and adopt children. My point is that the gov't should keep out of it.
Why would homosexuals want to adopt from an institution that is vehemently opposed to their way of life anyway?
Being a lapsed Catholic, I find the religion and most of it's followers to be terribly hypocritical. Do as I say, not as I do type of thing.
Wendy
> Catholics face moral dilemma over gay adoption > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/us_nm/religion_usa_dc_1 [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > "They may lose some private funding," said Pope. no@none.com - 15 Mar 2006 03:16 GMT >Why is the gov't telling the church what to do in the first place? I thought >there was a separation between church and state? Or did I miss a memo? As simple as possible:
Government regulates adoption.
Church decides to get involved.
Government has standards.
Standards include equal protection under the law applying to gay couples seeking to indoctrinate young peo .... er .... I mean, adopt. Gay couples seeking to adopt.
Church treated like anyone else.
>If Catholic Charities doesn't want homosexuals adopting, who cares? Why >should the gov't be able to tell them what to do? What if they don't want blacks adopting? Not that I don't like blacks or anything ...
Buttahflie - 15 Mar 2006 09:31 GMT My question here is: If everyone knows that the Catholic church is against homosexual relationships in the first place, why is anyone surprised that they're now against homosexuals adopting? Whether the government is involved or not. Just wondering...
Sheri - 15 Mar 2006 14:05 GMT Not surprised.
> My question here is: If everyone knows that the Catholic church is > against homosexual relationships in the first place, why is anyone > surprised that they're now against homosexuals adopting? Whether the > government is involved or not. Just wondering... Dragon's Girl - 15 Mar 2006 15:28 GMT I'm not surprised they are against it, but very surprised that they decided to completely stop adoptions based on the gay family law. It really doesn't seem to make any sense. I guess it's like setting your house on fire because your neighbor is gay and the law says you can't make THEM move.
Betty
> My question here is: If everyone knows that the Catholic church is > against homosexual relationships in the first place, why is anyone > surprised that they're now against homosexuals adopting? Whether the > government is involved or not. Just wondering... Sheri - 15 Mar 2006 23:52 GMT What? My neighbor is gay? Dangit....let me go get some firewood! HA HA HA
> I guess it's like setting your house on fire because your neighbor is gay wendy - 15 Mar 2006 22:41 GMT > My question here is: If everyone knows that the Catholic church is > against homosexual relationships in the first place, why is anyone > surprised that they're now against homosexuals adopting? Whether the > government is involved or not. Just wondering... Good question. I'm not at all surprised. I'm also wondering how many homosexual couples out there actually WANT to adopt from the Catholic Church. Since their lifestyle is considered by the church to be an abomination. Funny how they take that stand, yet there have been so many priests accused of molesting altar boys. Can you say hypocritical?
Sheri - 15 Mar 2006 23:53 GMT Hypocritical. There...I said it.
> Good question. I'm not at all surprised. I'm also wondering how many > homosexual couples out there actually WANT to adopt from the Catholic > Church. Since their lifestyle is considered by the church to be an > abomination. Funny how they take that stand, yet there have been so many > priests accused of molesting altar boys. Can you say hypocritical? wendy - 16 Mar 2006 00:06 GMT LOL
> Hypocritical. There...I said it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> abomination. Funny how they take that stand, yet there have been so many >> priests accused of molesting altar boys. Can you say hypocritical? no@none.com - 16 Mar 2006 18:24 GMT Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it.
>Hypocritical. There...I said it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> abomination. Funny how they take that stand, yet there have been so many >> priests accused of molesting altar boys. Can you say hypocritical? Sheri - 16 Mar 2006 21:50 GMT And just how do you know that I did not verbalize it when I typed it? HA HA HA
> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. no@none.com - 17 Mar 2006 03:09 GMT I merely assumed that you don't suffer from the disease talking to one's self in a empty room syndrome alone. Alexander Hamilton did that.
>And just how do you know that I did not verbalize it when I typed it? >HA HA HA > >> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. Sheri - 17 Mar 2006 03:16 GMT I wasn't talking to myself.....I am surrounded by family who were all conversing about the posts, and I simply VERBALIZED what I was writing in response.
>I merely assumed that you don't suffer from the disease talking to > one's self in a empty room syndrome alone. Alexander Hamilton did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. Jim Richardson - 21 Mar 2006 08:34 GMT Seems the Queers get all the attention here on ASCPS. Can't get a link to help families, but mention some FAGS trying to get access to boys and suddenly the happy people come out of the woodwork.
Sheesh...nobody gives a sh.t that the USA is fast becoming the USSA, but mention Fags and the happy people come out of the woodwork.
What would Fags want with vunerable children anyway? Their lifestyle choice does not offer the possibility of children So they whine to get our kids to pork.
Hump - seems every newsgroup I visit has it's resident Fag cheerleader squad. Especially any group with child or kids involved.
>I wasn't talking to myself.....I am surrounded by family who were all >conversing about the posts, and I simply VERBALIZED what I was writing in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> >>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. robert99@post.com - 21 Mar 2006 12:50 GMT Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here:
http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html
Homosexuality and children http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4145251,00.html
Jim Richardson - 21 Mar 2006 14:37 GMT > Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled > by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4145251,00.html Yeah Rob - Kids raised by fags do just fine Fag propaganda by fags - for fags. Man boy love is a cornerstone of faggetry.
I'll spare you the recent Illinois study that found Fags molest foster and adoptive children at rates that would spin your cap.
Fags suffer from sexual perversions that repulse most folk - they dream and write and speak constantly of butfuc*ing boys - Fags olderthan 30 ae called 'trolls' - fag rejects - the dead and dying.
Gather round boys, da fags wanna be yo daddy.
0:-> - 21 Mar 2006 18:11 GMT >> Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled >> by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Fag propaganda by fags - for fags. > Man boy love is a cornerstone of faggetry. What does that mean?
> I'll spare you the recent Illinois study that found Fags molest foster and > adoptive children at rates that would spin your cap. No, go right ahead and post them.
> Fags suffer from sexual perversions that repulse most folk - All practices that homosexuals engage in are performed by heterosexuals commonly.
> they dream and > write and speak constantly of butfuc*ing boys - Child molesters may, but homosexuals do not.
> Fags olderthan 30 ae called > 'trolls' - fag rejects - the dead and dying. > > Gather round boys, da fags wanna be yo daddy. I've never heard of some of your claims above. You seem to be very intimate in matters of child molestation and the practitioners. Why is that I wonder?
0:->
 Signature "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Jim Richardson - 21 Mar 2006 21:33 GMT >>> Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled >>> by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > intimate in matters of child molestation and the practitioners. Why is > that I wonder? I'm a recovering faggot, I used to hang in the bars where we'd carry on like an adolesent girls while we waited for the recruiters to deliver the chickens. You know the lingo dinkhead. You should - the issue hits close to home - huh homoboy??
> 0:-> 0:-> - 22 Mar 2006 00:46 GMT >>>> Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled >>>> by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > chickens. You know the lingo dinkhead. You should - the issue hits close to > home - huh homoboy?? Your proof that I'm a homosexual would be...?
I know literally thousands of homosexuals, male and female. Not a one a child molester to my knowledge. Many who have adopted children others did not even want.. and vastly improved their lives. Some children that disrupted from straight homes, but with two strong male models in their lives managed to get it together.
One example of many.
You aren't a recovering faggot. You are a recovering paedophile.
Quite a difference.
0:->
>> 0:->
 Signature "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
wendy - 23 Mar 2006 13:29 GMT You know what, "Jim"? You need to get yourself, as quickly as possible, to the nearest shrink. Your weird fascination with this subject is giving me the willies.
>> Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled >> by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Gather round boys, da fags wanna be yo daddy. Jim Richardson - 21 Mar 2006 14:47 GMT As you can tell, Rob, I didn't check your links before I replied - I'm so used to being swarmed by the Fag patrol that it didn't even dawn on me you might be on the up and up.
Thanks for those links - (like it takes a study to figure a kid raised by fags is gonna be one messed up individual) - now that theres proof positive - maybe the USA will stop sacrificing our children on the alter of Fagdom.
> Spanish report on infantile development in same sex couples, compiled > by Hazte Oir of Spain and published on a few sites including here: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4145251,00.html Dragon's Girl - 31 Mar 2006 18:04 GMT If we follow Jim's assertions that gays aren't fit to raise kids, then we come to quite a sticky issue: how WILL we protect gay BIO parents from abuse by the state????
Jim wants parents to have rights and the state to step out. But Jim also doesn't want gays raising kids because they are unfit.
I guess that means that, by Jim's standards, DFS should use homosexuality as grounds for removal of children.
It makes so much sense to add in yet another reason to remove kids from their homes, doesn't it?
See how smart Jim is?
Jim, like many of the other 'family rights' people, doesn't take the time to think through the future consequences of their immature reasoning.
If we deny gays the right to adopt, and the right to foster, then, eventually, someone is going to use that as undeniable proof that their ex wife, or ex husband is unfit to raise their child(ren) (after all, it will be law, you know), and then the department of family services will join in and start removing kids on those grounds, and then there will be ONE MORE reason to take a kid from their home based on abso-f.cking-lutely NOTHING.
Thanks Jim, families need more supporters like you.
> As you can tell, Rob, I didn't check your links before I replied - I'm so > used to being swarmed by the Fag patrol that it didn't even dawn on me you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4145251,00.html Jim Richardson - 31 Mar 2006 21:16 GMT > If we follow Jim's assertions that gays aren't fit to raise kids, then we > come to quite a sticky issue: how WILL we protect gay BIO parents from [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Thanks Jim, families need more supporters like you. Ucking monkeys on a typewriter make more sense than you caseworker - you're hilarious, delerious, and utterly worthless. Suicide is painless.
>> As you can tell, Rob, I didn't check your links before I replied - I'm so >> used to being swarmed by the Fag patrol that it didn't even dawn on me [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4145251,00.html Sheri - 21 Mar 2006 15:05 GMT Please don't mistake me for a faggot cheerleader....I just post the stories that are shared with me that pertain to adoption.
Warm regards, Sheri
> Seems the Queers get all the attention here on ASCPS. Can't get a link to > help families, but mention some FAGS trying to get access to boys and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>> >>>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. Jim Richardson - 21 Mar 2006 15:35 GMT > Please don't mistake me for a faggot cheerleader....I just post the > stories that are shared with me that pertain to adoption. > > Warm regards, > Sheri No - I see you're just posting about adoption. I was talking about newsgroups generally - forces that be have long ago shut off discussion on usenet - You're with us or against us - there's only one view left - who needs discussion?
But, you'd think homos would be the last ones to adopt government propaganda tactics - seeing they're about to be dealt with by the Bushies.
>> Seems the Queers get all the attention here on ASCPS. Can't get a link to >> help families, but mention some FAGS trying to get access to boys and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>>> >>>>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. midwestwoman - 21 Mar 2006 23:20 GMT I think the Catholic Church is having a moral dilemma over it's own shortcomings, failures, and abuses of grand delusions. Gay adoptions should be the least of their concerns right now. My advice to the church: "Clean your own house and take your own inventory before you start in on anyone else. Karma has finally caught up to you and you are getting what you deserve."
Carla
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11896692/from/ET/
BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts, one of the most Catholic states in the country, is witnessing an ever-widening rift between church and state on a raft of social issues, from gay marriage and abortion "buffer zones" to stem cell research and emergency contraception.
The schisms reveal the once mighty political clout of the Catholic Church in Massachusetts is in a state of flux. Large numbers of state lawmakers still identify themselves as Catholic but are picking and choosing when to side with the church, and when to break with it.
The recent decision of Catholic Charities, the Boston Archdiocese's social service agency, to end its century-old adoption program rather than comply with state law barring discrimination against gays is just the latest fissure.
Part of the church's declining clout may be the clash between its strict moral views and the messy business of politics, observers say.
"When the church has a position, it tends to be categorical," said Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry. "Lawmakers want their interest groups to take half a loaf and the church isn't eager to bargain. They want it their way."
Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com - 08 Apr 2006 16:12 GMT Homosexual adoption is child abuse. Putting innocent children with sexual deviants should be against the law and those trying to do so should be punished.
Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's Word regarding homosexuality and will one day have to pay the price for not believing what God has written.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:22-27
V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, V23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
V25 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.
V26 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:
V27 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.
1 Timothy 1:8-10
V8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
V9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
V10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com/Leviticus.html
Greegor - 08 Apr 2006 18:28 GMT Carla midwestwoman wrote
> "Clean your own house and take your own inventory > before you start in on anyone else." That's my position on the disgraceful Child Protection agencies. They try to sit in judgement of parents for trivia when government is without a doubt, THE WORST parent possible!
Iowa DHS had a disabled boy getting enema treatments several times a day in a DHS run facility in Cherokee Iowa, as punishment. Any moron knows it was child abuse, but DHS got to investigate itself, and decided that it was not child abuse. If a PARENT had allowed such treatment they would have been put in prison for "Failure to Protect".
I'm not in favor of gay/lesbian adoption, but considering the problems the Catholic Church has had of late, with child sexual abuse and coverups, WHY would anybody respect CATHOLIC CHURCH comments about child protection issues of any sort??
Neither the Catholic Church nor Child Protection agencies are without sin, yet they cast the first stone.
Both live in glass houses.
jack102@mail.com - 01 May 2006 11:20 GMT http://home.pacbell.net/perozich/Creating_Gay_Children.html
0:-> - 21 Mar 2006 18:07 GMT > Seems the Queers get all the attention here on ASCPS. It would not seem that way to you if you were not fixated on the issue.
> Can't get a link to > help families, I'm trying to recall when I've seen you post any. I've posted hundreds over the years, maybe even thousands of times. Others have as well from all sides of the issue of child protection. I applaud even my opponents doing so.
> but mention some FAGS trying to get access to boys and > suddenly the happy people come out of the woodwork. How is someone that insists on the truth about homosexuals and children "happy people?"
> Sheesh...nobody gives a sh.t that the USA is fast becoming the USSA, but > mention Fags and the happy people come out of the woodwork. You are a victim of propaganda.
> What would Fags want with vunerable children anyway? Those that foster do so for the same reason heterosexual people do; to provide safety and a home and family to the child.
Those that adopt do so for the same reasons heterosexual people adopt.
> Their lifestyle choice > does not offer the possibility of children Really? I know many lesbians who have given birth, and others, male and females who have adopted. That's also how many heterosexual people get children in their family as well.
> So they whine to get our kids to > pork. What would heterosexual people want with children if the person is a child molester?
> Hump - seems every newsgroup I visit has it's resident Fag cheerleader > squad. Especially any group with child or kids involved. The facts are that homosexuals are no more prone to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals.
You are making quite a fool of yourself.
0:->
>> I wasn't talking to myself.....I am surrounded by family who were all >> conversing about the posts, and I simply VERBALIZED what I was writing in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> >>>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it.
 Signature "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Jim Richardson - 21 Mar 2006 21:36 GMT Kane - you should get the facts before cheerleading for buttfuckers.
http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html
Homosexuality and children http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4145251,00.html
>> Seems the Queers get all the attention here on ASCPS. > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>>>> >>>>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it. 0:-> - 22 Mar 2006 00:48 GMT > Kane - you should get the facts before cheerleading for buttfuckers. Jimmy, you should not cherry pick yours before condemning decent people.
0:->
> http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it.
 Signature "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Dragon's Girl - 31 Mar 2006 18:06 GMT > Kane - you should get the facts before cheerleading for buttfuckers. Jim, you should get the facts before you start cheerleading for further reducing the rights of families to further your own agenda.
> http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, you stated it. You didn't say it.
|
|
|