terms of the contract
By Diogenes (articles ) | Oct 22, 2005
OK, let's try this again:
Wouldn't you think that an outfit that calls itself "Catholic Charities" would be 1) Catholic, and 2) concerned about charity? Perhaps you can explain this to me:
Despite Vatican teachings that allowing homosexuals to adopt children is "gravely immoral," the social services agency of the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed 13 foster children to be adopted by same-sex couples in the past two decades, saying state regulations prohibit the agency from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
"If we could design the system ourselves, we would not participate in adoptions to gay couples, but we can't," said the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities in Boston. "We have to balance various goods."
The 13 adoptions -- a tiny fraction of the 720 placed by Catholic Charities in that period -- took place as part of a contract with the state Department of Social Services. The children placed with the gay couples are among those most difficult to place, either because they have physical or emotional problems or they are older.
Hehir described Catholic Charities's decision to permit these adoptions as a legal accommodation in the name of a greater social good. He said if they did not comply with the state's nondiscrimination clause, they would not be able to do the state work that enables them to place hundreds of foster children in stable homes.
See if I have this right: We (Catholic Charities) have to harm some children, otherwise we'd lose the DSS contract and wouldn't be able to help children in our uniquely Catholic way.
Can't help thinking there's a flaw there somewhere.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our September expenses ($20,259 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Brad -
Oct. 23, 2005 6:34 PM ET USA
If the State required adoption agencies to worship Satan first......
Posted by: Eleazar -
Oct. 23, 2005 11:43 AM ET USA
Translation: Catholic Charities would not be able to collect the lucrative fees paid by the state. Here’s a novel idea, ignore the state and make placements only to those families that subscribe to Catholic doctrine. I’ll bet that if they did so, and published that fact, they could more than make up the money.
Posted by: Barb Kralis -
Oct. 22, 2005 10:14 PM ET USA
Here is a recent story of Catholic Charities in a large Archdiocese with a supposedly 'orthodox' Archbishop.My orthodox Catholic male friend was hired as asst director,eventually to replace the retiring director.From the first day the feminist nuns, sporting jewelry,dyed hair and peacknik clothing, fought my friend's orthodoxy, Mon thru Fri. The nuns spew uncharitable characterizations at Mother Angelica's work, made fun of Church's documents. They won,my friend fled for the life of his soul.
Posted by: -
Oct. 22, 2005 7:53 PM ET USA
This is truly disgusting. We see here both flawed morality as well as utter subservience to worldly goods, the state, and worldly aims and ends. What about the immortal souls of these children? Even if Catholic Charities were placing them with only heterosexual couples, ought these couples not also be Catholic? The premisses of the whole operation are deeply flawed.
Posted by: Remigius -
Oct. 22, 2005 1:51 PM ET USA
Another hidden outrage in the Boston Archdiocese comes to light, and the faithful have one more reason to cry, and to pray. I strongly suggest that the Archbishop act immediately to stop this horrendous practice. If he does not, then I suggest swamping the Holy See with complaints. Liberal clerics, such as Fr. Hehir, and their lay employee allies use the power they have to subvert Catholic teaching, and then justify their perfidy with specious claims of being more charitable than their critics.