(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Catholic Charities of Boston hates gay people so much, it would rather stop adopting out children altogether than comply with a law against discrimination.

Comments

[erinlefey.livejournal.com]

42 board members voted unanimously that it was fine, but 4 bishops (and the puppeteer in Rome) obviouly know better than those misguided people. That's an essay in and of itself.

[tantra-cat.livejournal.com]

So so sad...I really hoped we'd be more enlightened as a society by now...

[manifestress.livejournal.com]

un-believable!

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

Nope, totally believable. What do you expect from an institution that is run by sexually frustrated, middle-aged men? American Catholicism would be a lot different if the laity had more say in the policies and practices of the Church.

[brainsluglord.livejournal.com]

On the bright side, this means that the same people who're stoicly opposed to homosexuality will be raising a sparser next generation of people who're stoicly opposed to homosexuality.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is hopeless out of touch on this issue. The fact that almost 20% of the board members (all devout Catholics) resigned over this speaks to that very much. Heavily Catholic Spain legalizing gay marriage despite the warnings and threats from the church speaks to it as well. The average catholic these days is not right wing, but the church hierarchy is slow to change and adapt.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Or maybe it has nothing to do with hate. Maybe it has to do with a genuine concern for the well-being of children .. even if you do not agree with what is best for children. Maybe it has to do with ideological integrity, with an unwillingness to compromise conviction in the face of public opinion.

Perhaps it would be better to be happy that we live in a country where there is still some freedom to refuse to participate when the state makes law what one believes is immoral.

In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

You know what badsede, you are actually ABANDONING traditional Catholic morality for a position that more resembles, in its moral idiocy, fundamentalist Islam or Protestantism.

Sure, you can say, if you really WANT to--and against all the evidence that's now in--that two homosexuals raising children will "warp" the children, making them "confused" about that all-so-sacred "complementariness" that the foolish, romantic and anti-scientific "Theology of the Body" of John Paul II has turned into a fetish in modern Catholicism--a SUBSTITUTE for the charity of the Gospels. But what you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT get around--just as those faithful Catholic objectors who resigned cannot get around it--is that leaving children cold, hungry, un-affirmed and un-adopted--literally, perhaps, out in the cold of a Boston winter--is a FAR MORE SERIOUS MORAL EVIL, consisting in a wholly unacceptable level of cruelty.

But there you are, defending it, trying to pretend that Jesus Christ would have defended it. Your "Catholic Christian morality" is an offense in the nostrils of God and His Son!

[alobar.livejournal.com]

The fact that the government is gonna work to make religious organizations exempt from the law is an abomination. I think Catholic Charities should have their non-profit status pulled and be made to pay taxes just like any other money grubbing corporation.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[badsede.livejournal.com]

you are actually ABANDONING traditional Catholic morality

When some of his disciples found his teaching, his moral teaching, too hard to accept, Jesus let them go rather than change it. I do not see how the refusal of a Catholic organization to participate in activities which Catholic teachings hold to be immoral can be a departure from this precedent.

and against all the evidence that's now in

Really? I haven't seen any such evidence, but I would be interested in seeing it. The only evidence that I have seen suggests the contrary .. does not prove, but only suggests, and that's the strongest I've seen.

romantic and anti-scientific "Theology of the Body" of John Paul II has turned into a fetish in modern Catholicism--a SUBSTITUTE for the charity of the Gospels.

Howso? You've made this claim many times, but I have never seen you explain it nor substantiate it. Have you read JPII's series of talks and books that make up the body of Theology of the Body?


As to the children, they are the true vicitms. The state has chosen the path of oppression, of stifling of religious freedom and personal conscience. It has decided to mandate morality, and in doing so has overstepped its bounds. It is shown itself incapable of providing for the parentless in its area, and is using the charitable drive of people as a means to force that morality upon them. The children are the vicitims, and the state is the perpetrator.

[susiebeeca.livejournal.com]

I wonder if they'll refuse adoption to heterosexuals who buy the occasional lottery ticket.

[erinlefey.livejournal.com]

I rather agree with you on this aspect. I think this was done with a fair amount of class. Myself being a lesbian parent, I do believe the Catholic Church's stance to be rather uninformed. But rather than throw stones and cause an uproar, they made their decision, advised the affected parties of the timeframe involved, and are making an organized withdrawal from the sphere where their rules do not mesh with the legal requirements involved.

I could argue the evils of the Catholic Church (as opposed to ideal Christianity, which is a durned good thing) all day long. But this was handled by them as well as it could have been, I think. Kudos to them.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Would your stance change if this were a group of right-wing southern baptists refusing to allow catholics to adopt children based on similar religious objections?

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[badsede.livejournal.com]

No. I believe that they should have the right to act in accordance with their own morality and not be coerced into acceptance of a state-endorsed morality .. the fact that I may find that morality reprehensible does not matter. And I would still believe that the state should not be legislating morality.

Besides, it would be nothing new for Catholics in this country.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Myself being a lesbian parent, I do believe the Catholic Church's stance to be rather uninformed. But rather than throw stones and cause an uproar..."

Thanks for this.

I think a major problem with contextualizing disagreement as the other party being corrupt monsters is that it limits relations to the mutual opposition of force. Arguably, this has been the problem to begin with -- in almost any issue. When disagreement is contextualized as both parties having the capacity for sense and the desire for good, relations are not so limited, and communications of facts, ideas, arguments, and so on are possible.

With this in mind, it seems that, if people want others to change their position, they can either take the first route, become more powerful than the others, and force them to; or take the second route and not need to be more powerful or coercive. Of course, there are problems with the second route as well.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

The state legislates morality in many ways. Drug laws and prostitution laws are prime examples of legislating morality. Beyond that, even laws against rape and murder are based the moral standards that rape and murder are wrong. Non-discrimination laws may legislate morality, but in the same sense so does every other law.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[badsede.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between morality and justice. All unjust things are immoral, but not all immoral things are unjust. Laws against murder and rape safeguard a just society. They are an example of one of the primary roles of the state, to protect citizens from the aggression of other citizens.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Non-discrimination laws are about justice as well. As with laws against such things as murder, theft, fraud, and trespassing; anti-discrimination laws protect citizens the from the aggressive mistreatment of other citizens.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I believe that they are. However, I think that there is more at stake here than just discrimination. The state is deciding suitability criteria based on moral agenda and politics rather than an investigation into what is really best for children.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I define hatred as action, not emotion.

There is no evidence that queer parents are bad for children (as a matter of fact the American Academy of Pediatricians has concluded otherwise), so this is an action rooted not in "what is best for children," but in ideological narrowmindedness. Was this decision made after interviewing gay and lesbian parents and the children they have raised, or are raising? Somehow i doubt it... in fact i doubt that gay and lesbian voices matter at all to the Catholic Church.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Or heterosexuals who eat shrimp and cheeseburgers.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

So you define as hateful the act to refuse to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable?

The article you reference is about the effect of the lack of stability caused by parents lacking official recognition, not about the children of homosexual parents in general. But the studies of the sort to which the AAP referred have come under heavy fire as of late. For example, a study out of USC specifically looked at the body of research that had been done and found that the studies generally asked questions of their data that would lead to a specific conclusion, rather than allowing the data to lead to conclusions. But when different questions were asked of the same data - for example, not just about sexual orientation - the image that emerged was much different. Further, it was found that many of the studies were commissioned specifically for political reasons, and in that way are no different than those commissioned by fundamentalist Christians trying to manipulate science to prove their side. It doesn't prove that the conclusion is wrong, but it does prove that the it has not been proven that the conclusion is right, as has been touted by people engaging in the issue as a political rather than a developmental one.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

The state is not dictating suitability criteria. The state is simply requiring state-contracted adoption services not to base suitability criteria on moral agendas and politics.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[kumbunny.livejournal.com]

What proof suggests that two homosexual men will raise warped children?

Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state. understand you disagree with that. But this proof sounds suspicious.

Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!

[badsede.livejournal.com]

What proof suggests that two homosexual men will raise warped children?

Warped is quite the strong word. 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, suffering from methodology deficiencies that would not be tolerated in the rest of the scientific world. But they are being used as justification for revising the standards for appropriate situations in which to place adopted children. The state may be right, but it doesn't have the basis for the position besides politics.

Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state.

You're right, I do disagree with that .. especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.