Posted on 07/28/2008 7:58:31 AM PDT by Publius804
Europe
Catholic adoption agency’s new policy will allow homosexuals to adopt
London, Jul 27, 2008 / 05:57 pm (CNA).- The largest Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales has decided to implement an adoption policy that does not rule out same-sex couples in the face of new laws that forbid such screening. The change in its adoption policy was made with the full support of the bishops who oversee the agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Catholic Europe is an oxymoron.
Will be interesting to see the Vatican’s response....
Someone call the Pope.
There might be a few left in Ireland,Italy and Spain.Maybe a few in Portugal,too.But Europe has essentially gone atheist.
I am actually not sure I agree with the prevailing conservative wisdom on this. Certainly it would be ideal for every child to be raised in a married Christian family home. But, the reality is, the ideal is not always attainable.
I believe a stable gay home would be preferable to an orphanage. The problem arises in determining the stability of a gay home. But, if a gay couple can meet all the other standards required of a straight couple, I see no reason to leave a child without a family.
H
Sick, sick, sick.
The Church in Europe is in a shambles.
Disgusting.
The Catholic Church and C of E seem to be in tatters.
This should not stand.
Perhaps. But with 2 million couples in this country alone waiting to adopt, I would venture to say that the need for that choice is relatively minimal. We both know that it won't only be the kids no one else wants that will go to homosexuals. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if, eventually, there won't be a 'quota' of adopted kids that have to go to homosexual homes.
>> But with 2 million couples in this country alone waiting to adopt, I would venture to say that the need for that choice is relatively minimal. We both know that it won’t only be the kids no one else wants that will go to homosexuals.
To the extent that qualified heterosexual homes can be found, they should be utilized. My concern arises more for older children or minority children where the adoption rate is much lower, and they are much more likely to waste away in an orphanage. If no suitable heterosexual home can be found, then I would not object to a homosexual adoption.
>> In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if, eventually, there won’t be a ‘quota’ of adopted kids that have to go to homosexual homes.
That I cannot support.
Ultimately it is about finding what’s best for the children involved. A stable heterosexual home should always be given priority over a similar homosexual home. I just wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a homosexual adoption in circumstances where a suitable heterosexual couple cannot be found.
H
Because anyone not blinded and/or intimidated by political correctness would realize that homosexual coupling is intrinsically disordered behavior. Same-sex attraction is a psychopathology.
Immersing a child in an environment modeling the polar opposite of a healthy male-female relationship cannot be good for the child's development.
True.
Hey Ratzinger! check it out!
Confident that Benedict will excommunicate as necessary.
>> Because anyone not blinded and/or intimidated by political correctness would realize that homosexual coupling is intrinsically disordered behavior.
I am neither blinded, nor intimidated. I am fully aware that homosexuality is a disordered behavior.
>> Same-sex attraction is a psychopathology.
I know. It is but one of a million sins and psychopathologies. Eliminating all sinners from the ranks of adopters will create a very small pool of available homes.
>> Immersing a child in an environment modeling the polar opposite of a healthy male-female relationship cannot be good for the child’s development.
I won’t argue with that. I would simply argue that it can be better than the alternative — no family at all. A loving homosexual home may be the best available option for a child who might otherwise spend the rest of his life in an orphanage. Certainly a loving, but “disordered” family is better than a loveless childhood and a life of loneliness.
H
There are no stable homosexual homes. That diseased community of people are mentally deranged or they wouldn’t have that predilection in the first place.
Ugh, those poor kids who don’t know any better getting stuck in that situation...
>> There are no stable homosexual homes. That diseased community of people are mentally deranged or they wouldn’t have that predilection in the first place.
Stability can be difficult to find, and difficult to ascertain — even in heterosexual married couples.
Ultimately, this isn’t about the adult couple — its about finding the best situation for the child. I see no legitimate argument that a child is necessarily better off in an orphanage than in a homosexual home.
I am unwilling to rule out entirely the possibility of a homosexual couple being the best available option for a child. Perhaps it is unlikely ... but it certainly is possible. I am additionally unwilling to force a child to suffer a life without a family because of my moral objections to homosexuality.
When the ideal cannot be found, sometimes we have to work with what’s available
H
Even if you adhere to no moral code that sees these types of matters in black and white, right and wrong, they certainly do, or are supposed to. There is no gray areas with God and mortal sin. This is a Catholic adoption agency and this is a scandal beyond mere incredulity.
>> And this is a Catholic church agency we are talking about, who should not, like you, find any moral ambivalence or equivalence here.
I am not morally ambivalent. Homosexuality is entirely wrong, a sin against God, and a condemnable action. Nor do I create moral equivalence — a heterosexual family is, in almost all cases, preferable to a homosexual family (barring abuse, drug use, crime, etc. in a heterosexual home).
I am speaking strictly to those cases where a homosexual family is the only viable option. Would you deny a family to a child simply because the only option is a homosexual family? That doesn’t sound like Christian morality to me.
>> They are putting those children’s eternal salvation at great risk.
A child without a family, with no love during childhood, is at far greater risk. A homosexual family is not preferable — but it’s better than nothing.
>> Even if you adhere to no moral code that sees these types of matters in black and white, right and wrong, they certainly do, or are supposed to.
My moral code is likely identical to yours. I think it selfish, however, to condemn a child to suffer in an orphanage because only a homosexual couple can be found. I just don’t see how that jibes with Catholic morality. Christian morality compassion to children — how is it compassionate to deny a loving home to a child simply because the only option is a homosexual home?
>> There is no gray areas with God and mortal sin.
Of this I am fully aware. However, I would doubt that ANY adoptive family can be found (straight or gay) where no “mortal sin” has been committed. Homosexuality is but one of a thousand sins — and we all have ours to take responsibility for. If you seek only families without sin, you’ll leave a great many children without homes.
>> This is a Catholic adoption agency and this is a scandal beyond mere incredulity.
Catholic adoption agencies, like all adoption agencies, should put children first. In a scenario where no heterosexual family is available, a homosexual family is preferable to no family at all.
H
People who want to redefine their sins into being virtues are not fit to be considered as adoptive parents. Yes we all sin that's for sure, but aren't proud of it like these perverts are, who parade around their debauchery and want special rights because of it. I can't remember anyone who marched for rape rights, thief rights, adultery rights, etc. etc. Oh, wait a minute, I take that back. There are those who march for murder rights, again attempting to redefine something that is undoubtedly EVIL into something good. (Abortion)
And for you to say it's ok even as a last resort boggles my mind, especially since you purport to say that your moral code views these behaviors as abhorrent. Think again, I plead with you, and pray. I'm not against you friend, but you're just wrong. This life's tenure is nothing, it's a split second compared to eternity. Knowing what I do about HELL, I believe I would rather have been raised in an orphanage had I been in a similar situation than by any sexual pervert, who would in the normal course of events, teach me to believe that homosexuality was A-OK with God.
The Boston Archdiocese shut down all Catholic adoption work in Massachusetts rather than be required to place children with sodomites.
>> There is nothing worse than eternal separation from God, including loneliness and the rest of your pathetic list of life’s burdens.
A child without a loving home is far more likely to be a criminal, a degenerate, or a general catastrophe — and thus eternally separated from God. If the goal is to give children the greatest likelihood of a successful life (mortally and immortally) — then a loving home is always preferable to the lack thereof.
>> Yes we all sin that’s for sure, but aren’t proud of it like these perverts are, who parade around their debauchery and want special rights because of it.
Agreed.
>> And for you to say it’s ok even as a last resort boggles my mind, especially since you purport to say that your moral code views these behaviors as abhorrent.
My moral code views quite a large number of behaviors as abhorrent. Immoral behavior does not necessarily disqualify someone from raising a child ... thank God.
>> Knowing what I do about HELL, I believe I would rather have been raised in an orphanage had I been in a similar situation than by any sexual pervert, who would in the normal course of events, teach me to believe that homosexuality was A-OK with God.
This is far easier to say when you’re not the child being denied a home. I cannot in good conscience contribute to a child being denied a loving home.
I simply do not believe Christ would see this as an acceptable position. Christian morality does not abide suffering children. Christ loves those committing abhorrent acts (again, thank God). Christ loves innocent children ... His morality simply cannot be twisted to allow children to needlessly suffer.
Do you really expect that a child will understand that you’re trying to save his immortal soul — or is the fact that Christians denied him a loving home more likely to force him to turn his back on Christ? I don’t think it reflects particularly well on Christianity when we’re deaf to the suffering of innocents because we’re adhering to our “strict morality”.
It cannot be moral to allow a child to suffer needlessly.
H
Any orphanage would be better than what you find acceptable. There won’t be any real happiness short or long term for any child being subjected to live with what you find as an acceptable alternative.
Homosexual behaviour should still be against the law, just like incest, rape, bigamy, polygamy, and bestiality and those who practice it should be in prison or court ordered therapy. But you would celebrate it by allowing a child to be emotionally, mentally, socially, and spriritually(possibly physically) abused that way by being placed with someone like that.
Oh well, we’ve come a long way baby.
I assume adoption agencies adopt a hierarchy of preferable adoption candidates, starting with a married couple at the top.
Homosexuals should be somewhere down the list from that. I would actually put a lesbian couple above a couple of gay men.
It's not an ideal situation, but if I was a young kid whose choices were rolling the dice with the foster care system or living with a couple of lesbians who had been cleared by an adoption agency, I'm going to go eat tofu and listen to the Indigo Girls with the lesbians.
Probably a tempest in a teapot- I doubt there are all that many homosexuals who want to adopt, but I could be wrong.
>> Any orphanage would be better than what you find acceptable.
Again — this is quite easy to say when you’re not the one in the orphanage. The child simply wants someone to love him.
>> Homosexual behaviour should still be against the law, just like incest, rape, bigamy, polygamy, and bestiality and those who practice it should be in prison or court ordered therapy.
God intended that we have the freedom to choose the wrong path — that we have the freedom to embrace Him, or turn our back on Him. Only when we are free to choose the wrong path can we truly choose the right one.
Additionally, I’d argue that the concept of limited government necessarily precludes the prohibition of certain consensual sex acts. I may disagree with your boudoir activity — but, to the extent that it does not harm others, I don’t necessarily have mandate to control it. When certain acts of debauchery are undertaken by knowing consenting adults — mind your own business, and let the Almighty sort it out.
You may have the right to judge the actions of others, but you haven’t the right to dictate those actions.
>> But you would celebrate it by allowing a child to be emotionally, mentally, socially, and spriritually(possibly physically) abused that way by being placed with someone like that.
I do not celebrate homosexuality. I simply cannot see the morality of allowing a child to live his life alone simply because I have a moral disagreement with the only available parent. That cannot be a moral outcome, and blocking such a child from finding a loving family cannot be a moral choice.
You also misuse the term abuse. To the extent that homosexual activity is undertaken in private, it does not constitute the abuse of a child. To the extent that it is not kept private, that should be taken into account when judging the suitability of a family. It is also entirely possible for emotional, physical, and spiritual abuse to occur in a heterosexual household.
Judging the possibility of this abuse is part of the screening process ... as it should be. Certain homosexual households may be inherently abusive. In fact, the homosexual lifestyle as it now exists may eliminate most homosexual couples from adoption (not necessarily because of homosexuality itself, but because of the lifestyle — disease, promiscuity, instability, drug use, demonstrativeness ... all the same reasons a heterosexual couple can be eliminated).
But, I also do not eliminate the possibility that some suitable homosexual homes may exist. Homosexual homes must be judged on an individual basis. The lifestyle itself may eliminate many or most homosexuals from contention ... but a few may remain.
H
>> I assume adoption agencies adopt a hierarchy of preferable adoption candidates, starting with a married couple at the top. Homosexuals should be somewhere down the list from that. I would actually put a lesbian couple above a couple of gay men.
I agree completely. I don’t think a homosexual home should at all be judged as equivalent to a married couple. I simply won’t eliminate them from consideration wholesale, and based solely on their proclivities. I simply believe they should be somewhere ON the hierarchy, on the off chance a child’s options are limited.
>> It’s not an ideal situation, but if I was a young kid whose choices were rolling the dice with the foster care system or living with a couple of lesbians who had been cleared by an adoption agency, I’m going to go eat tofu and listen to the Indigo Girls with the lesbians.
Unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation. A child is better off with a stable married couple ... but, when none is available, I cannot see the morality of denying a child an available home.
H
What's the old saying? The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
>> The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
I suppose in this case — it should be rephrased as the good should not be the enemy of the barely tolerable.
H
Sorry to disagree with you. Homosexual behaviour should still be a crime, and placing a child with a homosexual will always, no exception constitute child abuse in my book. They are mentally sick individuals and are a danger to society, as is so obvious by the fact we are even discussing such a thing as putting innocent children with them. Like I said it ranks right up there with all the best, incest and bestiality included and no child should ever be subjected to having to live with anyone like that, placed with any mentally ill person for any reason, ever.
Thanks for the lively discussion, but I believe we’ve reached the end with no agreement in sight! Thank you again, and too for being civil, I appreciate that.
>> Homosexual behaviour should still be a crime, and placing a child with a homosexual will always, no exception constitute child abuse in my book.
Maybe I have a libertarian streak in me ... but, personally, I believe the government does not have the authority to stop people from hurting themselves. Activities like homosexuality or gambling are self-destructive behaviors — to my mind, self-destruction is not within the purview of government power.
Additionally, at least in Texas, the anti-homosexuality laws (the ones struck down recently) also forbade certain activities between married couples. I just don’t see why it would be the government’s business what my wife and I do when the door is closed. And, if that’s not the government’s business, I cannot justify the government similarly intruding on anyone else. So long as all participants are of-age and consent, I don’t see where the government has been granted the authority to regulate sexual activity.
>> Thank you again, and too for being civil, I appreciate that.
Religious disagreements could often use more civility.
H
This is a mortal act of Heresy.
Hey H, I am delighted to report that I FULLY AGREE with you on what married couples (ONE MAN-ONE WOMAN) do sexually. How bout that, we agree on one point! But I'm afraid that's as far as it will go for this ol girl.
Not exactly. Assuming we're talking about consensual acts between adults, then homosexuality is not like those things you mentioned, which involve a party who has not given, or is not legally able to give, consent (except for maybe incest, which could involve two consenting adults, but I think you were aiming at something like a father having sex with his underage daughter). Consensual homosexuality, though morally repugnant to some, isn't the same as those other activities.
>> Homosexuality is a mental disease, period, that my friend is my argument in a nutshell. Not a choice, or a proclivity, but a mental disease or disorder that should yes, receive our compassion insofar as treatment and love. Yes, love, but not approval, in any way, shape or form
I agree with every word of this. It is a mental disorder (in which people choose to indulge — so, in some respects, it remains a choice). It should be treated psychologically. It should not be approved of.
There is a difference, however, in disapproval and prohibition — just as there is a difference between approval and legalization.
>> Again, it is on par with rape, incest, bestiality and pedophilia.
Morally, you are correct. I would add adultery, lust, prostitution, vanity, gambling, habitual use of pornography, fornication, drunkenness, drug-addiction, etc. to the list. Everyone has their point of weakness.
But, legally speaking, it really isn’t on par. None of those (rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia) involve consenting adults. It is the harm perpetrated on another (by lack of consent or youth) which allows for governmental involvement. In pedophilia, rape and incest, for instance, it isn’t the immorality, but the harm perpetrated on the child, family member or rape victim which allows the government to involve itself.
As for bestiality — I don’t know. Property damage? Vandalism? Trespassing? Animal abuse? I’m sure there’s a crime in there somewhere.
>> I am delighted to report that I FULLY AGREE with you on what married couples (ONE MAN-ONE WOMAN) do sexually.
The problem arises when you extend government jurisdiction into the bedroom, they can intrude into our married lives just as much as a homosexual’s private life. That is simply too much government authority.
And, the fact is, they DID intrude into the lives of married couples. Anti-homosexuality laws actually banned certain popular extra-curricular marital activities (I’m being as non-specific as I can here) — activities which the government has no business banning. And, the equal protection clause says if they cannot ban it for all (which they cannot), they cannot ban it for any.
H
Our country was better off with these laws. Just look and see where their repeal has brought us, now we have to discuss putting innocent children into adoption with them, an absolute crime against them and God. They want your children, they want my children, they are stepping all over your rights and mine in their search for approval, in law and culture to the point where even in some cases you risk your freedom or your money if you criticize, exercise your freedom of association, and in the case of this Church agency your freedom of conscience. They are out of their filthy closets and going into your's, forcing their approval down our throats. Go ahead and accept it as apparently you have, but don't expect me to.
We could discuss this til the moon turns blue if you want.
Here’s the deal: Legality = Forced Approval Look around you and ask yourself if you want to continue down the road this is leading. I won’t go there. You are spouting moral relativism, couched in your libertarianism and that doesn’t work for me logically in whether or not this should be legal. The same arguments could be made for any crime, ANY CRIME. Consent between adults should not be a factor. Tell me, can we argue that consent should be said to have been truly given when the people involved are mentally damaged? They are harming themselves and others with their behaviour, that’s not hard to see, so why should we all of a sudden enshrine it in our laws that it’s ok? Prostitution is now legal in a lot of places. Is that ok? People are trying to get phsycian assisted suicide legalized, is that ok? Drugs are illegal, should that be ok? All laws have a moral basis, and if they protect the community from harm, they should not be dismissed out of hand because they are somehow just a private matter. They aren’t and the joke’s on us for believing it. Look at this mess, some of you think it’s A-OK for a child to be adopted by these perverts. Dear God help us.
In what way? I really don't see any benefit to giving the government the power to stick its nose into the bedrooms of consenting adults. I can't think of a more intrusive government power than one that allows them to come into by house and tell me what I can and can't do with my wife behind closed doors. And I may not like what homosexuals do in their bedrooms, but I don't want to give the government power over them, either.
Just look and see where their repeal has brought us, now we have to discuss putting innocent children into adoption with them, an absolute crime against them and God.
There's two issues at play here- something does not have to be illegal for it to disqualify your from adopting. It's legal to be an alcoholic, but that may disqualify you from adopting. It's legal to be a swinger, but that may disqualify you from adopting. And so on. Should homosexuality automatically equal disqualification for adoption? I'm not sure. But it needs to be handled in a case-by-case basis.
Should a couple of hard-partying, drug-using 20ish gay guys be allowed to adopt? No. How about a couple of 40ish lesbian lawyers who have been together 20 years and whose idea of a big night involves some ice cream and a chick flick? Maybe. Especially if the kid they want to adopt is developmentally disabled and is otherwise looking at spending the rest of their life in foster care and some sort of government institution.
There is no answer that covers every situation. These things needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Plenty of things are legal, but nobody approves of. Drunkenness. Lying. Laziness.
Tell me, can we argue that consent should be said to have been truly given when the people involved are mentally damaged?
Mental illness doesn't generally preclude a person from giving consent, unless you're talking about someone who is essentially in a vegetative state. Paranoid schizophrenics, for example, can generally give consent to sex, legally-speaking.
They are harming themselves and others with their behaviour, that’s not hard to see, so why should we all of a sudden enshrine it in our laws that it’s ok?
Alcoholics harm themselves. People who eat fatty food harm themselves. People who engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners also harm themselves. The fact that these things are legal does not mean that we, as a society, approve of these behaviors.
All laws have a moral basis, and if they protect the community from harm, they should not be dismissed out of hand because they are somehow just a private matter.
But if behavior is private, how can it harm a community? If someone wants to sit around acting in a terribly self-destructive manner with the blinds shut, how does that harm anyone else?
I think we're wandering away from this article, though.
Anyway, I've gotta go cook dinner now. Good evening and good night, and God bless.
>> You are spouting moral relativism, couched in your libertarianism and that doesn’t work for me logically in whether or not this should be legal.
Moral relativism is a paralysis of judgment — an inability to declare outright the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. I have no such paralysis, no such inability. I am fully aware of the distinction between right and wrong, and am fully willing to declare so outright. Homosexuality is wrong. So is totalitarianism.
I simply acknowledge that the nature of freedom is that people may exercise their own judgment insomuch as it does not intrude on the freedom of others. God imbued humanity with the freedom to choose the wrong path because, ultimately, only the freedom to choose the wrong path can allow us to freely choose the right one.
>> The same arguments could be made for any crime, ANY CRIME.
No, it really cannot. Murder, rape, child molestation, theft, burglary, shoplifting, armed robbery, assault, battery, trespassing, manslaughter, drunk driving, drug abuse, public drunkenness, reckless driving — all are based on either a non-consensual violation of the rights of another (life, property, etc.), or the direct endangerment of the public (drunk driving, drug abuse, etc).
There are a few crimes — such as prostitution, lack of a seat-belt, anti-suicide laws — that such an argument can be made about. Certainly not about “any law”.
>> Tell me, can we argue that consent should be said to have been truly given when the people involved are mentally damaged?
Yeah, we can. These are able-bodied individuals, not cerebral palsy patients or mentally retarded people — they are fully capable of giving educated consent. They know what they’re doing.
If you believe they’re so mentally defective that they cannot grant consent, how can they be mentally stable enough to be held legally responsible for their actions? If they are incapable of consent, they certainly are incapable of criminal intent.
>> They are harming themselves and others with their behaviour, that’s not hard to see, so why should we all of a sudden enshrine it in our laws that it’s ok?
They’re harming themselves. I fail to see how that’s any business of yours, mine or the government’s. There are some factions of Christianity which would say that extra-curricular sexual activity (i.e. non-intercourse), even between married couples, constitutes people “harming themselves” and should therefore be banned. It becomes a very slippery slope. Sooner or later, you’re going to feel your rights intruded upon.
>> Prostitution is now legal in a lot of places. Is that ok? People are trying to get phsycian assisted suicide legalized, is that ok? Drugs are illegal, should that be ok?
I have a feeling you and I are going to differ on prostitution as well. I think it should be heavily regulated (like strip clubs and porn shops) so as to keep it separated from certain areas. But, overall, if she wants to sell it and he wants to buy it, I see no legitimate reason for the government to prohibit the transaction. There is no victim.
As for drug abuse, like drunkenness, I believe it is an innocent victim/ public safety issue. People on drug highs are unable to control their actions, and pose a danger to innocent bystanders. It can be prohibited. Homosexuals do not pose a similar risk to the bodily safety of bystanders.
>> All laws have a moral basis, and if they protect the community from harm, they should not be dismissed out of hand because they are somehow just a private matter. They aren’t and the joke’s on us for believing it.
When I speak of “community harm”, I don’t mean general harm to the moral fabric. I mean actual bodily harm to the public (i.e. killing innocent bystanders). There are MANY things that pose a threat to the moral fabric of society which nonetheless cannot be banned — Muslims, Wiccans, atheists, homosexuals, feminists, liberals. These are choices which harm the moral fabric of society ... but they are choices that people are free to make.
>> Look at this mess, some of you think it’s A-OK for a child to be adopted by these perverts.
I never said A-OK. I never said ideal. I said it was preferable to complete abandonment. I said it was merely acceptable if there is no married Christian home available.
H
>> Well my friend it’s apparent that you have bought off on their harmlessness.
You’re putting words in my mouth — I never said “harmless”. I don’t think they’re harmless. I think they’re free to do as they will, and I think they’re preferable to child abandonment.
>> They are out now with their long knives and are destroying anything in their path that stands in the way to them achieving moral equivalence.
I have a feeling we’re on the same side of this fight. I oppose homosexual moral equivalence. I oppose gay marriage. I oppose pride parades (in substance, I do not oppose their right to march ... obnoxious is not illegal). I simply cannot use this to justify a child being abandoned.
>> I hope and pray that both of you personally are never a victim of this evil
Much appreciated. Prayer is always a good thing.
>> but your acceptance of these empty arguments makes me very afraid you already are.
Concern for the welfare of an abandoned child is not an “empty argument”. Your solution seems to be to leave him abandoned, which seems a bit heartless to me. I just cannot picture Christ saying, “he’s better off in an orphanage”.
H
Benedict is gonna kill them.
God I hope you’re right, this is horrible, and as a Catholic I’m ashamed.
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.