Posted on 05/29/2007 4:25:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
“Unfortunately it seems that many Catholic Charity boards and members are CINO. I don’t know how much influence and/or authority has over the Catholic Charity in their diocese. Does anyone know?”
In our diocese they take up a collection in every parish for catholic charities. It would semm that some authority would exist.
you are wrong on both counts statistically.
In Florida there was a highly publicized case of a gay couple who already had several special needs children. They had to move to Oregon because although they had been caring for these kids for several years, they could not adopt them. Only reason: they were gay.
So far, no one answering my question at the end of post
# 9.
and you have statistics on these special needs chilldrens’ parent not signing off?
I doubt that.
Why would anyone rule out a caring person to take this responsibility?
Any more cases other than this highly publicized one?
I very much doubt that gays are stampeding to adopt all the special children, stuffed into Dickensian orphanages or farmed out to abusive fosters, that heterosexual Christians don't want.
BTW my son administers a network of "detskii dom" (orphanages) in Russia, which is where most adopted white children come from these days. Almost every one of the children in his institutions have parents or close family members who do not want to relinquish their children to overseas adoptions.
Russian orphanages? don’t want to release their children to adoptions overseas?
Ok, I am thru discussing this with you....HELLO!
We are talking about adoptions in the USA/
BTW you still can’t answer my question can you?
Because you WOULD object to a child having a home with a gay couple even if that was the last couple on earth that wanted to adopt the child.
That is the height of lack of compassion.
If there are so many unwanted children in the USA then why do infertile couples have to go overseas to adopt? There are WAITING LISTS that infertile couples languish on FOR YEARS in order to adopt in the USA.
even if that was the last couple on earth that wanted to adopt the child.
STRAW MAN, has nothing to do with "compassion" or lack of same, because INFERTILE NON-GAY COUPLES WAIT FOR YEARS TO ADOPT.
It’s frustrating to me that the Catholic Church is violating its own moral teachings by doing this. I’m sick of CINOs getting ahold of the Church. It appears a couple California diocese, including this and Los Angeles are under the grasps of CINOs.
First of all, the add campaigns mock Catholicism. Family Planning is a knock on NFP and the Church’s opposition to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a big supporter of no “accident” families. That is exactly why they kill those who are unplanned “accidents”. Intelligent Design is just a rip on how the Catholic Church believes the world was created. They are claiming these families to be “intelligently designed” as though by God, even though these families directly oppose the Church’s teachings. The add also mentions that the family considered all their “options”. Options is a common term used by the above mentioned Planned Parenthood, and their talk about “accidents”. It’s obvious this group does not like Catholicism because they further mention that there is no regard for the children once they get here, meaning we save their lives from and don’t care. That is of course very ridiculous to say.
Secondly, the Church should never support agencies that are putting children in an immoral situation to be politically correct and give the children “somewhere” to live. These situations are not conducive to the healthy moral growth of the children. Would these agencies give children to an unmarried couple wanting children, polygamists who want children, or groups of people that want children? My guess is most agencies would not, even though the aforementioned would probably love the children and give them somewhere to live. If they would, though, would the Church support them as well? Does the Church support them adopting out to unmarried couples too?
Ultimately, the Church should condemn agencies that are putting children in immoral situations contrary to its own teachings. The Church should have either left the adoption business altogether or continued on by defying the rules (meaning not adopting to homosexuals).
I hoping most other U.S. diocese would be opposed to this, the Catholic Church in other countries, and ultimately the Pope.
You got some more recovering there to do Ex-hippie A little reading:
Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811137/posts
Gay foster parents abused young boys (UK)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637039/posts
Lesbian couple found guilty of boy’s murder (refused to call mom’s dyke friend “daddy”!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603097/posts
Study finds disproportionate abuse by ‘gays’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355028/posts
Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439170/posts
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children [Spanish Study Results]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417036/posts
Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331584/posts
That’s enought for now.
Mind you I am not Catholic, but shouldn’t the Pope sanction this “Catholic” non-profit Adoption Agency or something..if worse comes to worse “Excommunicate” the priests who run it..?
another brilliant response...did you think that up all by yourself ?
“you got some more recovering to do”...wow. what an intelligent, thought out response.
Then more brilliance with a whole slew of sites that have nothing to do with gay parenting and then two “reports” that gay parenting is not a good idea. I never said it was ‘ideal”..but then you don’t want to even consider a possibility in extreme situations.
So you still don’t answer the question I pose , which is very realistic, in my post #9.
What IS a "gay" couple -simply a pair of physically heterosexual human beings who partner up with members of the same physical sex to engage in intrinsically disordered sexual activities?
I WOULD object to any child being placed with a person that chooses to engage in intrinsically disordered sexual activities no matter what moral relative argument you pull out of your hat. Two wrongs do not make right NOR does a lesser evil make such evil good...
Placing a child with a "homosexual" single, pair or group is in essence comparable to committing violence/imposing psychological abuse upon a child.
P.S. Since this topic has a Catholic "theme" -my post encapsulates what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject.
I give up.
Your hatred and anger about “homos” is so intense that no rational argument is possible. BTW....lets just not let any heterosexual couples adopt either cause after all there is also sexual and physical abuse there...oh, yeah, but they are not “seriously mentally ill.”
I am appalled by your “Christianity”...makes me ashamed to call myself Christian. Keep your version of the Christian religion and your version of the only right way to be ‘compassionate”....and for your “bishops”.
they go overseas cause they don’t want less than perfect children and certainly not older ones. wow...pretty compassionate. But then you can’t argue with you....”game set. match.”
Your hate is just so circular. Better not let any heterosexual atheists or Budhhists adopt either. After all, the bishops wouldn’t approve.
“Notice the VERY blatant deliberate “insults” to orthodox (real Catholic/evangelical) religions in even the “titles” of the ad campaigns?
You think they did that by accident? Or that they will apologize? ......”
Of course not. Their goal is to destroy Christian mores and traditional culture.
We hear: “In reference to the current ad campaign Family Builders supervisor Bevan Dufty claimed that, “The religious right…only seems to care about how a child gets here, and once they’re here, they’re somebody else’s problem.””
If people insult gay people like Bevan Dufty smears the religious right, they are called bigots.
Some prejudice is more acceptable that other prejudice.
He was referring to the ad campaign not the article.
“Guess not, or there would not be so many children who are “unadoptable”..maybe because of special needs.”
Wrong guess, try again.
“Ok, I am thru discussing this with you....HELLO!
We are talking about adoptions in the USA/”
All of the adoptive parents that I know personally have had to go overseas (eg China, Romania, Russia, Bolivia) to adopt children.
I’m curious, are you aware of that, and do you know why so many adoptive parents are doing that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.