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.