The Serpent&#39;s Wisdom

It is dictating. It's making a legislative decision that being raised by homosexual parents has no developmental impact on children when the research directed toward the question has yet to come to a conclusive conclusion. Since its not being driven by research, suitability is being determined by politics.

From:

Exactly what then has Catholic Charities based it's policy to deny adoption services to lesbian and gay parents? As there is no evidence to show that having lesbian and gay parents would harm a child, the denial of state-contracted adoption services to lesbian and gay prospective parents is based solely on the moral agenda and politics of the Catholic Church.

From:

kumbunny.livejournal.com

But the reality is that the studies that have been put forth to support the idea that there is no developmental impact on children of homosexual couples have been shown to be fundamentally flawed...

I would suspect that any study into solo parents, or parents that physically chastise or athiest parents would be found to be fundamentaly flawed. Since there does not seem to be any perfect way to raise a child. I have to admit, I am suspicious of these findings you speak of.

especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.

If you are speaking about Umerika. Then I would question it as a secular state. On paper maybe. But I see no evidence of it being close to a secular state.

From:

sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com

Are you suggesting that the state's anti-discrimination law is comparable to the conservative "war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying" agenda?

The religious argument against homosexuality, rooted not in fact but in emotion, can only devolve into, and therefore always leads to, hyperbolic comparisons of this sort, meant ostensibly to show (since non-religious people "can't see for themselves") how 'destructive' homosexuality is...

I guess it's just hard for me to reconcile my experience of knowing many good and loving queer parents, with the kind of intolerance that would lead an organization to take its toys and go home like this.

From:

sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com

No, i define as hateful the decision to stop doing good and necessary work because of the organization's intolerance towards a small segment of society (and therefore a small segment of the families applying for adoption). The organization is taking its toys and going home, thereby punishing families heterosexual and homosexual alike, and forcing the state to find other ways to link children who need homes to eager adoptive parents... this is an intensely immature reaction.

Why the absolute unwillingness on the part of the church to investigate it's own position and consider that maybe on this they're wrong? After all, the church requests reflection and re-consideration on the part of those with whom it disagrees.

You can try to couch it as "refus[ing] to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable" but in doing so you have to overlook the greater wrong that is being committed here.

Let me demonstrate my point from another angle. Suppose you are trying to toss food to sheep, but among the sheep there are a few goats who occasionally get the food instead. If you don't want the goats to get the food, are you going to stop tossing food out there altogether? Sure, you've succeeded in keeping goats from getting the food, but at the cost of starving the sheep too.

From:

You may be interested in some of these articles, which DO support my idea that the “Theology of the Body” is “un-scientific” and “romantic”:

The legacy of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” which this writer sees as a “stunted teaching”:

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/032103/032103q.htm

John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” may be “Gnostic and heretical,” according to this writer:

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/SnakeOil.html

This is very interesting on Gary Wills’ criticisms of John Paul II. Please note the response of the Pole, who thinks it quite legitimate for a critic of th e late Pope to mention the role of his Polish ethnicity in describing his world-view:

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/daily_000267.php

This article presumes that “complementarity” is just “patriarchalism” and homophobia writ large, whereas I think it has mostly to do with anxiety to preserve the ecclesiastical power structure:

The pope upholds his particular view of the complementarity of the sexes (which he finds revealed in the Genesis creation narrative commanding procreation) and concludes that in the church there exists a female Marian principle (no ordination) that complements a male Petrine principle (ordination). Granted, John Paul II has made efforts to defend the goodness and sacredness of married heterosexuality in his prolific writings, but his insistence upon gender complementarity and the ban on contraception ensure that his teachings fail the needs of ordinary persons. The pope's romantic rhetoric is not received beyond a minority.

While Christian teachings and understanding of sexuality and gender have been evolving over the centuries, at this point we are caught in both an underestimation of the positive power of sexuality to engender love, unity and transformation in committed couples, and an overestimation of the moral, psychosocial and theological significance of gender identity (mostly female). [I personally attribute this to the late Pope’s exaggerated and unnecessarily anti-ecumenist cult of the VIRGIN Mary.] These inadequacies are systemically interrelated and thwart change. Authorities fear that if the ban on contraception and procreative gender complementarity is relaxed, then the way is opened to homosexual unions, which would further threaten gender complementarity, which in turn would threaten the ban on women's ordination, and so on.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2003_01_06/2003_03_21_Callahan_StuntedTeaching.htm

Luke Timothy Johnson on American Catholicism and on the “Theology of the Body”:

http://www.catholicsinpublicsquare.org/papers/fall2001commonweal/johnsonpaper/johnsonpaper.htm

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=200

I should hasten to add, though, that I believe that the late Pope is to be given a great deal of credit for BEGINNING this re-visiting of traditional Catholic sexual morality. Although I believe his teachings are “half-baked” regarding gender roles and identity (“complementarity” being too narrow an understanding of the impact of gender on affectivity and identity, and also too narrow an image of God’s or even Jesus’ nature), I also believe that, in the fullness of time, a more mature, charitable and civilized attitude toward same-sex and transgendered love WILL arise.

We could actually start with a more historically accurate understanding of the encounter between Jesus and a centurion who wanted his catamite-slave (as all in the crowd of 1st-century Roman subjects would have understood the nature of that relationship) to be cured and who reached the Saviour’s heart with his plea and his gentle, trusting "queer" faith.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

From:

The Catholic Church Hates Gays…
Posted by DAN SAVAGE at 12:09 PM

…more than it loves babies. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

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…

The state’s four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church’s religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.

Here’s the really telling part: Catholic Charities 42-member board voted unanimously in December to consider gay households for adoptions. So it wasn’t lay Catholics who had a problem with gay couples adopting children, but the bishops—all conservatives, all appointed by Rome, all out of touch.
And all hurting children.

When it comes to adoption, religious conservatives want us to believe that straight couples are clamoring to adopt children who are being adopted by gay couples. That’s a lie—there are more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples (or singles) willing to adopt them. Often gay couples are willing to adopt children that straight couples are not—older children, handicapped children, children with HIV, mixed-race children. So the choice isn’t between gay parents and straight parents, but between parents and no parents.

Or to put in terms the bishops can understand: if you don’t also allow gay couples to adopt children, you’re leaving a lot of kids in limbo.

And, finally, the ultimate irony: This is the Catholic Church in freaking Boston, epicenter of the sex-abuse scandal. The same bishops who refused to protect children from rampaging pedophile priests are now “protecting” children from qualified, screened, and thoroughly vetted adoptive parents who happen to be gay.

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/05-11.php#a004755

And so is Andrew Sullivan:

The decision by Boston's Catholic Charities to give up all adoption services because of being required by the Vatican to break state law and refuse any and all gay adopters is one of the saddest things I've heard about in a long time. A reader comments from a particular perspective:

"I was raised Catholic, but, incidentally, I'm also adopted from South Korea through none other than Catholic Charities. I would have grown up in an orphanage in Korea, as that used to be the solution to children like me who were born out of wedlock, except that my biological mother decided to put me up for adoption. Her one specific request, and I feel it's an important and notable one, given the circumstances, was that I was to be raised Catholic. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'd like to think it was because of how they treated her and their reputation, both of which are sterling in terms of adoption.

My Mom's Irish and my Dad's Italian-Lithuanian and a career military doctor, so I would have to say that I feel as American as anyone else and, for all the trouble I've had with my faith, especially in recent times with all of the Church's misguided decisions, pronouncements, and corruption, I still long to actually and truly believe. But, to hear this, even though I have not grown up in a homosexual family, tells me that clearly the Church's priorities are so skewed, if not outright bankrupt, that I almost feel inclined to pursue a different branch of Christianity. It seems inconceivable that this is their excuse to dismantle such an important part of Catholic Charities, and, for a student currently studying abroad like me, it is just another push in the long chain of events that give me great misgivings about the Church, especially in America, and about our treatment of homosexuals."

…I've said it before, but I'll say it again: one day the Church will apologize to gay people for the wounds it has inflicted on their souls and psyches. Not in my lifetime, perhaps. But one day. And now, they're punishing children to maintain their doctrinal purity. May God forgive them.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

From:

Catholic Charities isn't the state. Theological and moral reasons are sufficient for its decisions about what it will and won't do, even simple private opinion is. The same cannot be said for the state.

From:

I have to admit, I am suspicious of these findings you speak of.

The findings simply hold that the body of studies out there are, for the most part, methodologically flawed, suffering from small sample size, non-longitudinality, etc.

But I see no evidence of it being close to a secular state.

Then the question becomes even more pertinent as to why I should put it before my religious affiliation.

From:

Are you suggesting that the state's anti-discrimination law is comparable to the conservative "war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying" agenda?

No, I am saying that this state has provided me with no basis to put it, nor its values, ahead of my religious affiliations. Any use of the state for the determination of "right" and "wrong" has to deal with the fundamentally flawed nature of our state.

The religious argument against homosexuality, rooted not in fact but in emotion, can only devolve into, and therefore always leads to, hyperbolic comparisons of this sort, meant ostensibly to show (since non-religious people "can't see for themselves") how 'destructive' homosexuality is...

But you have missed the point that I was actually making...

I guess it's just hard for me to reconcile my experience of knowing many good and loving queer parents

I grew up in a broken home, but that did not change the fact that I grew up in a loving home with good parenting. But that fact doesn't change the detrimental developmental effect that it had on me either.

From:

Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan. I asked for the proof that you claim exists and you give me politicos. All you have done is demonstrate that the state's policy is based on opinion.

From:

You seem to be neglecting the fact that while Catholic Charities is a private organization, the adoption services it offered were contracted by the state. The state has a duty to ensure that services it contracts out are offered in an non-discriminatory manner.

From:

this is an intensely immature reaction.

So I suppose you would say the same to a pacifist who refuses to file as conscientious objector to avoid a draft?

You disagree with Catholicism on this issue. That's fine. But their position has not been disproven, so I don't see how anyone could expect them to abandon it just in order to play the state's game. One of the core messages of Jesus was not to be a hypocrite, and participating in actions contrary to their morality is hypocricy.

The state has made doing this good contingent on being unfaithful to Catholic teaching. This is no different than the law that required that taking political office depend on denying transubstantiation. Considering that there is more need than Catholic Charities can fill, it has decided to focus instead on the good that it can do without compromising its Catholicism.

Your analogy shows how you are approaching the issue completely differently that Catholicism is. Your focus is on the goats, but in the analogy, the thing that would most closely align with what Catholicism is concerned for is the food. And you have just demonstrated my whole point. The state is acting based on political concern for the potential adopters and not for the children.

From:

And thus CC did the ideologically honest thing and withdrew.

Which is a seperate issue from whether or not the state is right in its stance. Suitibility criteria are, in a way, fundamentally discriminatory. They exclude all kinds of people. However, the state has revised its criteria of suitable households not one dependable scientific studies or empirical data, but on political non-discriminatory principles.

From:

I have yet to see any scientific evidence of why adoption services should get a special exemption from state anti-discrimination laws.

From:

Look above, on the subject of the "Theology of the Body."

I never claimed to give you "proof" that the Church's policy was immoral and unnecessarily cruel. That's self-evident, to any but moral idiots.

From:

Many things that are within our rights would make our households unsuitable for the raising of children. Anti-discrimination laws only go as far as the discrimination is not based on ability. (For example, anti-discrimination laws would not prevent a transit authority from refusing to hire a blind man as a bus driver.) Homosexual parents may or may not qualify, but the state has decided one way in the absence of scientific evidence.

From:

I asked for the proof which you claimed showed that being raised by homosexual parents has no developmental effect on children.

And I wanted *you* to explain it. I read through those articles and they made the same assertions with the same lack of backup0. They were opinion without compelling reasoning.

From:

It is not hard to find direct evidence that a blind man cannot safely and effectively operate a bus. However, neither you nor the Catholic Church can offer any evidence that having gay and lesbian parents is detrimental to having children. All that is offered is assumptions, and exclusionary policies based on unfair assumptions and stereotypes are exactly what anti-discrimination laws were designed to guard against.

From:

Look, there's ALSO NO "compelling reasoning" that same-sex parents harm the development of a child. I myself have known two pairs of same-sex parents who raised perfectly heterosexual kids in such a way as to cherish, affirm and celebrate those kids' HETEROSEXUALITY.

KIDS LIKE THOSE are the only valid assessors of the situation. Are you going to deceitfully claim that the Church and her paid "counselors" and "psychologists" are actually ASKING the REAL PEOPLE in the situation?--Actually asking the children who've benefited from "gay adoptions" about the care and love they've been given (which I've actually SEEN with my own two eyes)? No, you know they don't even want to hear it--and neither do you. Your mind is made up, like a bigot's always is!

From:

My point is that the proof that placing children with homosexual parents is not detrimental that the state has used to justify its decision has been shown to be flawed. The state felt that their decision needed to be justified with research, and thus made its decision contingent on research supporting its course of action. If the research isn't as solid as it was purported to be, and the state has already operated on the presumption that solid research justified the decision, then the decision needs to be revisted.

From:

You've known a couple of people, and your experience falls vicitm to the same problem as so many of those studies .. small sample size. And my experience has been different, encountering just what the USC study that is so critical of the other studies found in the data of those very studies, a higher incidence of sexual promiscuity and experimentation and depression.

And as always, this is where we end up. I challenge you to substantiate your position and you call me names. You claim the banner of charity, but you give

geckowwjd a run for the least charitable Catholic I have ever interacted with.

From:

The state is acting based on political concern for the potential adopters and not for the children.

Let's stop pretending that this has anything to do with the welfare of the children. If the Catholic Church cared so much about the welfare of Children, why did they turn a blind eye pedophile priests for decades (and probably much longer), shifting them from parish to parish instead of actually dealing with their abuses of children. The Catholic Church's issue with gay and lesbian couples adopting children isn't about child welfare at all, it is simply about political agenda.

From:

If we are to be honest, we have to account for the reality that it was an era when psychiatry still believed that it could be treated and cured and bishops believed them .. another triumph of science. How extremely little the Catholic Church has done to advance a political agenda compared to how much she could do - Catholic obligation to obey the bishop on issues of morality is enforceable by excommunication, yet look at how much moral dissent and how few excommunications there are in this country - demonstrates that political agenda is not the primary motivator in issues like these.

From: