in 
Catholic, Culture, Homosexuality
Catholic, Culture, Homosexuality Saturday
11Mar
"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 FriendReferences (2)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: Deserving the right to parentOverall, and probably like most folks with a protestant background, my impression of the Catholic church has never been extremely favorable. The seemingly neverending discovery of case after case of child molestation by... -
Response: This is just SICK!Ms Underestimated's blog posted "manual" for do it yourself abortion for the women of South Dakota. She did it to protest it. A "doctor" who treats themself only has a fool for a patient.I do not believe in abortion, but in adoption. The adoption l
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.