Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Dr Strangelove]

Dr S:

Thank you for your serious reply to this issue.

While I admire your attempt to address one issue, I am reticent to discuss the particular facts of this case. I wouldn't want to do so without reading the case report, as court reporting and legal journalism is in my experience inaccurate.

In other words, I don't know whether we're in a good position to debate the facts of this particular case.

In the 2008 article one of the council member who interviewed the prospective foster parents says that the issue was their response to a question asked about how they would react if one of their charges was a 10 year old who complained of being bullied because he was gay. You can read the article. Do we really have reason to doubt this report? Sure it could be inaccurate, but then again any report could be inaccurate. Even court documents could be inaccurate.

Nevertheless,let's go with what we have, even if it is only (for my part) for the purpose of thinking about this issue rather than thinking about the UK's political/legal stance on homosexuality as such.


Harmful enough to deprive prospective foster parents of custody? If so, what if the natural parents of the child were of the same view? Should the same consequence follow? If so or not, why?


I'm not sure that I'm convinced by the agency argument. Shouldn't the law regard the welfare of any child as paramount to the concerns of the parents? If we accept that such instruction constitutes harm to the child, why should it matter if the child's parents are natural or foster parents?

What do you mean be stating that you're not convinced by the agency argument? Foster parents receive monthly payments from the government for caring for a child, adoptive parents do not (unless their is an additional disability or other welfare issue). Foster parenting is supervised by the government, adoption, once completed generally is not. Foster parenting is temporary, it can be terminated by the foster parents, social services or even at the child's request. What more do you need to know to convince you that a foster parent cares fro a child as an aren't of the government?
Now if you're proposing that bigots should be denied the priviledge of raising children, you know you might have supporters here on this forum. :lol :lol :lol

[Ben Kenobi]

Try that, if it doesn't work go to the original article and scroll down to the end where you'll find a section labelled "More on This Story"

For some reason url's here aren't being automatically hyper-linked, but you should be able to copy that address.

Thank you, Dr. Strangelove. I really do appreciate you doing this.

[Ben Kenobi]

(one even Zevico has called you on)

Zevico understood me perfectly and he said nothing of the sort. I'm really not sure what your problem is other than overwrought hyperbole. Perhaps you hope that by saying stuff that's not true that the peanut gallery takes up your cause? I don't know.

In any case, I asked a question which Zevico quite rightly pointed out is the key to this, at least for me. Do you believe that those who are devout Catholics ought to be able to adopt children and teach them their faith? Yes or no.

Your definition of what it means to be a Catholic is not the universal one.

*My* definition? It's right there in the catechism of the Catholic church. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered behaviour. It is sinful. Those who engage in homosexuality need to confess their sins and stop engaging in sodomy in order to be blessed by the Church.

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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

Your ignorant arrogance in speaking for all Catholics is not surprising.

I never spoke for all Catholics. I qualified by referring to devout Catholics. Devout Catholics accept what the Church teaches. There are many dissenting Catholics who reject the teachings in whole or in part, I'm not quite sure how it is arrogance in refuting your assertion that the Church teaches that homosexuality is ok. It's not. It's sinful. Along with quite a few other things.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can bet that BK would scream bloody murder if he discovered an incident where a Muslim couple was able to foster a Catholic child where they had declared their intent to teach him that Catholicism was wrong and raise him as Muslim.

Funny you bring this issue up. Remember I wasn't a Catholic before? The Catholic Church is strict in that if you are going to marry you have to agree that the kids will be raised Catholic. Why? Because they believe that it is the duty for parents to teach their children their religion.

I would be bothered by a Catholic kid who's parents didn't raise them Catholic, whether they are adopted or not. If you are Catholic you should raise your kids in it. If I didn't believe in that I wouldn't have become a Catholic and I would not have agreed with their stance on religious education well before I was a Catholic. Heck I would have been ok, as a protestant, getting married to a Catholic girl and then raising the kids Catholic. It makes perfect sense to me.

Heck, it's one of the reasons I enjoy my job. I get to help Catholic parents teach their kids. It does bother me when they don't get taught what the Church believes it, so rather then do nothing, I'm thrilled to be able to make a difference.

[Boris Godunov]

Zevico understood me perfectly and he said nothing of the sort.

Yes, he did. You lie again:

It is, plainly enough, nonsense, as Illinois has no such policy or law. I'll leave BK to make excuses for it.

The question is: is there an aspect of this argument you *haven't* lied about?

I'm really not sure what your problem is other than overwrought hyperbole. Perhaps you hope that by saying stuff that's not true that the peanut gallery takes up your cause? I don't know.

Are you seriously trying to portray your suggestion that Illinois was barring Catholics from adopting as "overwrought hyperbole?" Do you think anyone is going to buy that? You're weakness in trying to cover up your lie is matched only by the pathetic attempt to try and assert *I've* lied about something, which hasn't happened. Nobody is buying it.

In any case, I asked a question which Zevico quite rightly pointed out is the key to this, at least for me. Do you believe that those who are devout Catholics ought to be able to adopt children and teach them their faith? Yes or no.

No. You asked: "So if there's a chronic shortage [of potential adopters], why is the state [Illinois] barring devout Catholics from adopting?" Since The state of Illinois does not bar Catholics from adopting, devout or otherwise, this question cannot possibly be key to *anything,* as it's simply not true. It's a lie. That you told. It doesn't matter that a potential Pentecostal foster couple in the UK was denied the ability to foster a child, as that's 1) not adoption and 2) not Illinois, or even the U.S.

If you'd bother to read, I already addressed what I feel about Catholics adopting in a reply to Zevico above. I'll even quote it for you:

I don't object to the right of parents to teach their kids not to approve of homosexuality. I don't like that it happens, but that's life. The best we can do is work to change their minds once they're old enough to think for themselves, and build enough cultural antipathy to such ideas that they're forever regulated to the fringe of society. At the same time, such people have no right to prevent homosexuals or anyone else from instilling the opposite value in their kids. And that's the real crux of the anti-gay adoption issue. The claim that it's because they strongly believe kids should have a mother and father is a smokescreen, and the insinuation that gays will be more likely to molest their kids is an insidious lie. The real reason is because the cultural conservatives know they're losing on the issue of societal acceptance of homosexuality, and they view any adoption by a gay couple as one more lost warrior for their cause. It's not about protecting children, it's about protecting their stodgy belief system against the ever-growing consensus that there's nothing at all wrong with gay people.

Note that no one in this thread, nor in any article linked so far in this thread, nor anyone in any position of significance as far as I can tell has said that Catholics, devout or otherwise, should be barred from adopting children. The state of Illinois does not bar Catholics from adopting. The U.K. does not part Catholics from adopting. Neither Asher, myself nor anyone else here has said Catholics should be barred from adopting. If someone wants to argue that, feel free to engage him on that issue, because as of now, it's an irrelevant red-herring to the discussion at hand. It's a persecution fantasy cooked up in your addled brain.

The only person in this thread who has expressed support for any group being barred from adopting is you.

*My* definition? It's right there in the catechism of the Catholic church. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered behaviour. It is sinful. Those who engage in homosexuality need to confess their sins and stop engaging in sodomy in order to be blessed by the Church.

If following the dictates of the catechism is required to be a devout Catholic, then we can safely say you're not a devout Catholic, as it quite clearly says that one shouldn't lie. You lie, you do it constantly, you know you do it, and you keep doing it. In fact, I'd wager that if one were to define "devout Catholic" as obeying the catechism, nobody could be considered a devout Catholic. Note that nothing in what you quoted from the catechism requires a devout Catholic to engage in psychological abuse of a gay kid, especially one for which he isn't actually the legal guardian. In fact, it says in another passage:

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.

A devout Catholic could certainly take that to mean that full civil rights for homosexuals, including marriage and adoption rights, were acceptable. Given the distinction it deliberately makes between those within the church and not, it also doesn't proscribe that they should be fostering children with attitudes that run contrary to the desires of the state (the actual legal guardian).

Devout Catholics accept what the Church teaches.

This is your assertion. It may even be an assertion by the Church hierarchy. But that doesn't make it actually true. I've spoken with many Catholics who consider themselves devout and do not accept all of the teachings of the Church. This is because they recognize the simple truth that Church teachings were made by human beings, who are fallible. Note that several hard-right conservative Catholic groups object to the catechism's teachings, stating that among other things it endorses acceptance of evolution. Yes, you're still trying to speak for all Catholics by laying claim to "devoutness."

Funny you bring this issue up.

Funny, nowhere in that post did you actually address the point I made. You certainly didn't make a point objecting to it. If I wasn't sure you were just continuing your pattern of lying and obfuscation, I'd have to wonder just how mentally incompetent you were that you *still* can't seem to tell the difference between fostering kids and adopting them. But both I and Dr. Strangelove made that distinction abundantly clear, so the only logical reason you persist in conflating the two is just rampant dishonesty.

[Ben Kenobi]

If following the dictates of the catechism is required to be a devout Catholic, then we can safely say you're not a devout Catholic, as it quite clearly says that one shouldn't lie.

Did I ever assert that I considered myself a devout Catholic? Have a look back through everything, Boris.

You lie, you do it constantly, you know you do it, and you keep doing it. In fact, I'd wager that if one were to define "devout Catholic" as obeying the catechism, nobody could be considered a devout Catholic.

Which is scriptural too... The standard is Christ himself.

Note that nothing in what you quoted from the catechism requires a devout Catholic to engage in psychological abuse of a gay kid

It means imploring on the necessity of sinners, of which we all are, to repent. Homosexuality is sinful, and those who engage in sodomy need to repent.

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.

A devout Catholic could certainly take that to mean that full civil rights for homosexuals, including marriage and adoption rights, were acceptable. Given the distinction it deliberately makes between those within the church and not, it also doesn't proscribe that they should be fostering children with attitudes that run contrary to the desires of the state (the actual legal guardian).

Wow. There's a difference between just and unjust discrimination. Devout Catholics consider discrimination in permitting marriage between a man and a woman only to be just.

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

Devout Catholics accept what the Church teaches. This is your assertion. It may even be an assertion by the Church hierarchy. But that doesn't make it actually true. I've spoken with many Catholics who consider themselves devout and do not accept all of the teachings of the Church.

Again, they are not devout Catholics. They are dissenters. This is what dissent means, to defy the authority of the Church.

This is because they recognize the simple truth that Church teachings were made by human beings, who are fallible.

Except, that it isn't. The Church claims that their teachings come from God who is divine and infalliable. Any purported Catholic who believes that the teachings of the church are falliable is a protestant.

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

I'd have to wonder just how mentally incompetent you were

Zevico understood my point. Why would that me the mentally incompetent one?

Did you miss this part Boris?

They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[MrFun]

go away, BK

[Boris Godunov]

Ben, you're confused by the meaning of a word, again. "Devout" does not mean "adheres to the catechism" or "adheres to every rule established by the Church." That's YOUR definition, but it is not what the word actually means. It simply means being passionately "devoted" to a particular cause/belief/etc. Hence the origin of the word. And hence the simple fact that one can indeed be a "devout" Catholic and reject the Church's anti-gay stances.

But that's all besides the point, as this is not a debate about the catechism, and I've no intention of arguing it with you. I noticed you failed to respond to 2/3rds of my post, hence conceding the points that you lied about the state of Illinois barring Catholics from adopting, you lied about the UK barring Catholics from adopting and that you were attempting to change the subject via a dishonest claim. Concession accepted.

[Barnabas]

A Catholic has to believe that all that the church teaches with regards to morals is right. They may not follow something, but if they don't follow that thing they have to know they are sinning because of that.


A Catholic may use condoms because he does not want any more babies with his wife, but he knows that he is sinning because he is doing that.

[Zevico]

1. Re: Illinois. I said it was nonsense, i.e. not based in fact. In so doing I did not imply that BK was a liar or that he lied. He's said he didn't remember the details of the article. In other words, he replied without checking the article (and the facts) first. This does not equate to lying. It's merely careless. The result, in any case, was an interesting discussion.
2. Regardless, we're not here to make friends and influence people. Heaven forbid, we're here to maybe (just maybe) discuss and think about things. I know, how incredibly pretentious of me to think so. Even if you assume (and I stress that I make no such assumption and see no reason to make such an assumption) that BK is a "liar", that does not render the substance of his arguments any less or more interesting. We're here to play the ball, not the man. Discussions on this board often turning into pointless, irritating and unworthy pile-ons. Often we discuss emotional issues; I've been guilty of the pointless insults before myself. Can't we at least try to avoid them in future and argue about the issues rather than the (supposed) intellectual honesty of the posters? The result will not necessarily be agreement on every topic, but it may at least lead to some mutual comprehension. Is that so bad?

[MrFun]

Zevico - one of the few voices of reason left on Apolyton OT.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you're confused by the meaning of a word, again. "Devout" does not mean "adheres to the catechism" or "adheres to every rule established by the Church."

That's what devout Catholic means. You can indeed be devout without accepting the teachings of the Church, you can indeed be Catholic without doing the same. But to be a devout Catholic you accept what the church teaches.

And hence the simple fact that one can indeed be a "devout" Catholic and reject the Church's anti-gay stances.

No you can't Boris. You can be devout, but you aren't a devout Catholic if you reject what the Church teaches.

But that's all besides the point, as this is not a debate about the catechism

You've made it into one by disputing the assertion that a devout Catholic follows the catechism. If you're willing to concede the point then carry on.

As for the other points, I've already dealt with them. Don't see why I need to repeat myself to someone who's already called me incompetent.

[Boris Godunov]

You've dealt with nothing, BK. You lied about Illinois barring Catholics from adopting, you lied about the UK barring Catholics from adopting and now you're lying about what it means to be a "devout" Catholic, as it in no way requires such a Catholic to accept the anti-gay dogma of the Catholic hierarchy.

[Zevico]

I'm beginning to think the purpose of this discussion is to get one's "daily two minutes of hate."

[Boris Godunov]

I don't hate anyone, I just call bull**** where it deserves to be called.

Such as this:

1. Re: Illinois. I said it was nonsense, i.e. not based in fact. In so doing I did not imply that BK was a liar or that he lied. He's said he didn't remember the details of the article. In other words, he replied without checking the article (and the facts) first. This does not equate to lying. It's merely careless. The result, in any case, was an interesting discussion.

No. BK has a long, storied history here on Apolyton of lying his ass off in arguments. He has been called out time and time again by innumerable Apolyton posters for his constant, pathological lying. Stop trying to give him cover. He lies in the same way you or I breathe.