Oh, what a diff a day makes to (MA) Catholic Charities and gay parenting

[TaleWgnDg]

.

Imagine that! Members of the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities (Boston) want to continue facilitating gay adoptions and gay foster parents, but Rome and the various state Archdioceses are against gay parenting whether adoptions or foster care. And, Massachusetts law specifically forbids gay discrimination in adoptions or foster parents. As well as, financial backers of Catholic Charities (Boston) will buck like hell if Rome and/or the Archdiocese gets its way.

What a self-made conundrum is Roman Catholicism in now! Egads. Can the Church higher-ups do anything correctly?

Follow the money on this baby. Seriously. I'll bet the house that money will be the determining factor w/ this beaut! My dig at the Roman Catholic Church (Massachusetts) is that they sure should get better lawyers to better legally counsel them! BTW, is Rogers still doing his part? Or was he fired when Cardinal Law got fired <cough>?

Bishops to oppose adoption by gays
Exemption bid seen from antibias laws

by Patricia Wen and Frank Phillips, (Boston) Globe Staff | February 16, 2006

The four Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay couples as adoptive parents, according to two board members of the church's largest social service agency who were briefed on the plan.

The decision follows a three-month study of the theological and practical impact of having Catholic Charities of Boston, the Boston Archdiocese's social service arm, place children with gay couples, given the Vatican's teaching that describes such adoptions are "gravely immoral."

This decision to seek an exemption from state anti-discrimination rules pits the bishops against the 42-member board of Catholic Charities of Boston, which is made up of some of Boston's most prominent lay Catholics. The board voted unanimously in December in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children.

In the past two decades, agency officials placed 13 children with same-sex couples, a tiny fraction of 720 adoptions completed by them during that time.

The outgoing chairman of the board, whose term expired earlier this month, expressed strong opposition to the bishops' plan, saying it would undercut the agency's longstanding mission to provide stable homes for as many needy children as possible.

. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/
.

But, oh, what a difference a day makes . . .

Bishops dealt setback in pursuit of gay adoption exemption

by Patricia Wen, (Boston) Globe Staff | February 17, 2006

Governor Mitt Romney and a legislative leader yesterday delivered unwelcome news to the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, who plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay and lesbian parents from adopting children through its social service agencies.

The governor said he was not authorized to give such an exemption, and State Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, the House chairman of the joint committee on the judiciary, predicted little support among lawmakers for any request by Catholic adoption agencies for an exemption from the state's antidiscrimination policies.

"I would say there would not be an appetite to entertain that," O'Flaherty said.

The comments were made a day after the Globe reported a plan by the four bishops of Massachusetts -- representing Boston, Worcester, Springfield, and Fall River -- to hire a Boston law firm to explore legal and political strategies for opting out of gay adoptions. Catholic Charities of Boston, the social service arm of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, has in the past two decades processed a small number of gay adoptions in compliance with state antidiscrimination laws. The Vatican has stated such adoptions are ''gravely immoral."

The bishops' plans are at odds with the 42-member board of Catholic Charities of Boston, which voted unanimously in December to continue the practice of allowing gays to adopt.

. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/17/bishops_dealt_setback_in_pursuit_of_gay_adoption_exemption/
.

[Erika]

1. Religions are becoming so exclusive

that most Americans wouldn't qualify for membership.

Amusing as I ponder how Christ would view that in their eyes.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. How very true . . . good post . . . n/t

[xchrom]

3. and yet their priests continue to molest children.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. Peter Meade, outgoing chairman of (Bos) Catholic Charities . . .

.

"This is an unnecessary, unmitigated disaster for children, for Catholic Charities, and the Archdiocese of Boston." --
Peter Meade, the outgoing chairman of Catholic Charities, on Massachusetts bishops' plan to exclude gay couples as adoptive parents

Thank you, Mr. Meade, for your insightful honesty about gays and parenting.
.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. BosGlobe Letters to the Editor (op-ed pages) 2/18/06 . . .

.

BosGlobe's Letters to the Editor (op-ed pages 2/18/06)

Proposal to bar adoption by gays stirs reaction

IT SADDENS me that spiritual leaders feel that barring gays from adopting is right for children in this state who are not fortunate enough to be born into a stable household (''Bishops to oppose adoption by gays," Page A1, Feb. 16). I have many disagreements with the Catholic Church, but have always respected its charitable work.

The church has every right to its belief that homosexuality is a sin, however much I may disagree. However, it is incomprehensible that church leaders, based solely on sexual orientation, would seek to bar a family who wishes to adopt a child in need. The only criteria that should be looked at regarding prospective adoptive parents are whether they are fit parents and whether they will provide a loving, stable home. - LINDSAY FORD, Boston

__________

WHO GOVERNS the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Our elected officials or the pope?

My former wife and I have done our duty to society by raising two children who have always been fine productive citizens (and they have raised their children to be the same). Now I hope to make use of the opportunity to legally marry my same-gender life partner this year. And though the adoption issue does not touch me directly, what about my soon-to-be husband? He has not yet had the opportunity to raise children, as he hopes to do. Will he be prevented by the point of view of some foreigner in Rome? - GEORGE W. CASPER, Boston

__________

ONLY IN Boston would the Catholic Charities-gay adoption flap occur. Historically, Catholic Charities in Worcester has handled adoption requests from gays by declining the requests but referring them to agencies that will accept them. The parents get to adopt, and the church doesn't have to act against its teaching.

Why is that perfectly reasonable arrangement not good enough? Because opponents want the church to either undermine its teachings or be scolded on the front page for sticking to them. Either way the church is worn down a little more as a political opponent. - DANIEL J. DWYER, Hingham

__________

AM I reading this right? The Catholic Church considers that it has a right to comment on the protection and security of children, given the egregious pattern of abuse that it has supported over the past several decades?

The data are clear: Children with gay and lesbian parents thrive just as well as children in various other sorts of family arrangements, as long as they are provided with a safe, secure, and nurturing home. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with children's well-being; sexual abuse, on the other hand, destroys children's lives. - DR. ELLEN C. PERRIN, Boston. The writer is director of the division of developmental-behavioral pediatrics at the Floating Hospital for Children.

__________

THE BISHOPS' ideas do not reflect the Roman Catholic Church that raised and educated and has guided me during my 52 years. Their ideas are only the knee-jerks of an insular and misguided leadership that needs to take courage and thoughtfully reflect upon its sacred responsibilities. - PAUL DOBBS, Boston

__________

I WONDER whether anyone bothered to ask the 13 kids who were placed with gay couples over the past 20 years how they feel about this. After all, these were all children who had been abused or neglected and were considered hard to place, as your article indicated. Put bluntly, that means that other heterosexual families were unlikely to adopt them or had not wanted them. I wonder if the four Roman Catholic bishops care about what a few courageous, loving gay couples did for these few lost souls by stepping up against all odds to save them. - ANTHONY V. RAO, Chestnut Hill. The writer is a child psychologist at Harvard Medical School.




. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2006/02/18/proposal_to_bar_adoption_by_gays_stirs_reaction/

.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. Boston Globe editorial for February 18, 2006 . . .

.

(BOSTON) GLOBE (newspaper) EDITORIAL

Adoption and doctrine

February 18, 2006

It is not a newspaper's role to advise a church on doctrine. When religious organizations carry out public policies, however, there will often be some friction at the intersection of the sacred and the secular, and that intersection deserves full public debate.

In seeking to reverse the longstanding practice of Catholic Charities of Massachusetts, by which 13 children have been adopted by same-sex couples in the last 18 years, the four Roman Catholic bishops in the state must have known they would generate an uproar. In any event they have, both within the church and without.

Here is the dilemma. Catholic doctrine declares that homosexual relationships are immoral. But (Massachusetts) state law governing the adoption process bars discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation. The bishops are planning to seek an exemption, but Governor Romney says he doesn't have the power to grant one, and legislative leaders say they don't have the inclination to vote one. If the church fails to get an exemption, it may face the choice of living with the current situation or directing Catholic Charities to bar gay or lesbian couples as prospective parents, which might well stop the agency from helping children in the custody of the Department of Social Services. The latter would be a tragedy. Catholic Charities has been helping children, many of them unwanted or abused, find loving homes for a century. It has handled 720 adoptions since 1987. And it is known for successfully placing children with difficult physical and emotional problems.

While respecting the church's right to its opinion, it has become increasingly hard to demonstrate what harm might come from gay adoptions. Many studies, including a 2004 article in the journal Child Development, research from 2002 by the Child Welfare League of America, and a major survey in 1995 by the American Psychological Association all conclude that children brought up by single-sex couples were virtually identical to other children in academic performance, socialization, and sexual orientation. One study indicated a very slightly greater willingness by girls brought up by lesbian parents to ignore gender stereotypes and seek training as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. The Vatican may be moved in part by Massachusetts' legalization of single-sex marriages, but again, with the law in effect for more than 21 months, the institution of heterosexual marriage has survived quite well.

. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/02/18/adoption_and_indoctrine/

(bold-faced typeface emphasis by TaleWgnDg)
.

.

That deserves repeating:

"it has become increasingly hard to demonstrate what harm might come from gay adoptions. Many studies, including a 2004 article in the journal Child Development, research from 2002 by the Child Welfare League of America, and a major survey in 1995 by the American Psychological Association all conclude that children brought up by single-sex couples were virtually identical to other children in academic performance, socialization, and sexual orientation. One study indicated a very slightly greater willingness by girls brought up by lesbian parents to ignore gender stereotypes and seek training as doctors, lawyers, and engineers." (as quoted from the above BosGlobe Editorial, indicia from medical journals/trials.)

.

[Maat]

7. I quite agree, Counselor.

This recently-graduated J.D. and retired social worker believes that (1) there aren't enough adoptive parents to take on kids who have been in foster care and who want to be permanent placement (i.e. PARENTS), and (2) if adoptions go down, everyone's bounty (funding) goes down. Permanent foster care is the most expensive outcome; adoption is the optimal outcome (for many reasons); I'm talking about when returning the kids to biological parents is not an option.

By the way, when I went through adoptions classes to adopt Beloved Daughter, luckily there were several gay/lesbian couples, along with other like dedicated compassionate couples. By coincidence, there were NO hardright fundamentalists.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. My heartfelt feelings are that "hardright fundamentalists" should

be prohibited from adopting as well as foster parenting because they instill/teach hate at the knee in those innocents in whom we entrust into their care.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. HEADLINES: BosGlobe, Thursday, March 2, 2006 . . .

.

Boston Globe, front page, headline, Thursday, March 2, 2006,
"Seven quit charity over policy of bishops - Deplore effort to exclude same-sex adoptions"
(strike-out vertical line of non-relevant articles by TaleWgnDg)

Seven quit charity over policy of bishops -
Deplore effort to exclude same-sex adoptions

by Patricia Wen, Boston Globe Staff | Thursday, March 2, 2006

. . . snip . . .

The 42-member board (of Catholic Charities) unanimously voted in December in favor of continuing gay adoptions at Catholic Charities.. . . (T)he (seven) members who resigned are (Peter Meade, executive vice president of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Chairman of the Board of Catholic Charities until last month,) Geri Denterlein, president of Denterlein Worldwide Public Affairs; Donna Gittens, chief executive officer of Causemedia; Paul LaCamera, general manager of (public radio station) The WBUR Group (and ex-manager of Boston television station WCVB-TV, Channel 5); Brian Leary, a former television reporter and partner at Gadsby Hannah; Colette Phillips; president of Colette Phillips Communications; and Micho Spring, chairman of Weber Shandwick New England.

. . . snip . . .

The resignations were announced as Governor Mitt Romney met for nearly an hour yesterday to discuss the issue with Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities. The bishops have said they deserve an exemption (on religious freedom grounds) from the (Massachusetts) state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination against gays. . . . Romney repeated previous remarks that he cannot simply waive the state's antidiscrimination law through an executive order. But (Governor Romney) left open the possibility that he could support the church's efforts in another way. "Ultimately, legislation may need to be filed to provide an exemption based on religious principles," Romney's statement said. "I look forward to continuing our discussions with the church so that we can assist them in performing their charitable work in a way that does not violate their religious beliefs."

. . . snip . . .

(Archbishop) O'Malley and (Rev. J. Bryan) Hehir (president of Catholic Charities) left the meeting through a side exit, bypassing reporters. (Soon-to-be-Cardinal) O'Malley issued a statement saying he appreciated the chance to meet with the governor and described the meeting as "a preliminary one."

. . . snip . . .

The (Massachusetts Catholic Charities) bishops have previously raised the possibility of seeking passage of legislation that would grant them an exemption, but state Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, House chairman of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, has said "there would not be an appetite to entertain that" on Beacon Hill.

That leaves a third option, a court challenge by the (Massachusetts Catholic Charities) bishops on the grounds that the state anti-discrimination policy violates their religious freedom. Before that can happen, say several legal specialists, the bishops would have to specifically file for an exemption with the state and, after being rejected, go to court to challenge the decision.

. . . snip . . .

But Edward Saunders -- executive director of the Massachusetts Catholics Conference, which represents the bishops -- has said that church doctrine on the issue of gay adoptions is unequivocal. The document, written in 2003, states that allowing children to be adopted by same-sex couples "would actually mean doing violence to these children." It ends by saying that gay adoptions are "gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle . . . that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."

. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/02/seven_quit_charity_over_policy_of_bishops?mode=PF

.

[TaleWgnDg]

10. So, all of this means that the Roman Catholic Church . . .

.
So, all of this means that the Roman Catholic Church . . . is joining the rest of the religion-into-law rightwingers across America to stop "gay adoption." That, despite a mountain of scientific/medical evidence that children parented by gays are no different than children parented by straights.

Quite an agenda, huh?

The Roman Catholic Church suddenly claims openly and loudly that Rome prohibits such gay adoptions therefore the Church's charity here in America must abide by such gay prohibitions in Catholic Charities adoptions.

Indeed.

Although it's common knowledge what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church is about gays, the Church's open acknowledgement of same and its timing of same is questionable.

Why now? Why so openly? Does politics play into this? Of course it does.

Rome smells a potential victory, state-to-state, due to the extreme political tactics of radical American rightwingers. Rome smells blood in the water. Rome and its minions in America want to move now to push their own religion into America's laws. No matter who it hurts including children.

Rome is no different from other religion-into-law radicals across America today in injuring gays and their children including potential adopted children. P E R I O D.

Shame on Rome. Shame on this new pope. And, shame on (soon-to-be-Cardinal) Archbishop O'Malley of Boston.


========================================================

"They are fanatics with a very extreme agenda, and
they will accept no restrictions on how to seek it.
People who think they are doing the work of the Lord
are sometimes less willing to accept earthly constraints."
- U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D, Massachusetts),
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 commenting on Congress's actions
in the Terri Schiavo "right to die with dignity" debacle.

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent,
immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation
of the laws of Nature and Nature's God upon which this Nation
and our laws are predicated."
- Alabama's 10 Commandments Judge Roy Moore

"I believe that it points up the fact that we
need common sense judges who understand
that our rights were derived from God. Those
are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."
- GWBush, June 27, 2002, explaining his theocratic
litmus test for federal judicial nominees.

"I always laugh when people say that George W. Bush
is saying this or that to appease the religious right. He
IS the religious right."
- GWBush first cousin John Ellis, as quoted in
"The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty" by Peter and
Rochelle Schweizer (Doubleday), and as reviewed by
literary critic David Greenberg, The New Yorker Magazine
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?critics/040712crbo_books

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that,
I couldn’t do my job."
- GWBush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, July
16, 2004, during a private meeting with an Amish group.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/07/16/quote_of_the_day.html

"I think President Bush is God's man at this hour,
and I say this with a great sense of humility,"
— Timothy Goeglein of the
White House Office of Public Liaison told
World magazine, a Christian weekly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19253-2001Dec23?language=printer

“Faith-based programs are only effective because they
do practice faith. It’s important for our government to
understand that. (F)aith-based programs only conform
to one set of rules, and it’s bigger than government rules.
The inspiration is not from (government) bureaucracy,
and that’s what’s important for government policymakers
to understand.”
— GWBush on the campaign trail, 2004, putting a new twist
on the 1st amendment's Separation of Church and State,
and the Establishment Clause.
http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/Views/2004/02.04hollman.html

"I called on Congress to join me in passing laws that
would allow the — open up the federal treasury to
faith-based programs, and (Congress) balked," Bush
said. "So I signed an executive order instructing all
federal agencies not to discriminate against religious
groups."
— GWBush, January 15, 2004, explaining to a black
New Orleans church audience why he signed (the bribes of)
several Executive Orders over-riding congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/elec04.prez.bush.thursday/



Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
PLACING BLAME for 9-11-01:

Falwell: "I really believe that the pagans and
the abortionists and the feminists and the gays
and the lesbians . . . ACLU (and the) People for
the American Way, all of them who try to secularize
America -- I point the finger in their face and
say 'you helped this (9-11-01) happen.' "

Robertson: "I totally concur. . . . We have adopted that
agenda at the highest levels of our government . . .
and the top people is, of course, the court system ."

http://cronus.com/images/jerry_falwell_patty_robertson.mp3
========================================================
.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. MA Lt Gov Healey breaks w/ Romney on gay adoption exemption . . .

.

(MA Lt. Governor Kerry) Healey breaks with (MA Governor) Romney on gay adoption exemption

by Jay Lindsay, AP Writer | Boston Globe, Thursday, March 2, 2006

BOSTON (AP) -- In another break with her boss, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (Republican) said Thursday (March 2, 2006,) she wouldn't support any (Massachusetts) legislation to exempt Catholic social services agencies from a law requiring them to consider gays as adoptive parents.

The state's four Catholic bishops (in Massachusetts) said this week that the (Massachusetts) law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.

But Healey, a Republican candidate for governor, said the Catholic church should abide by the state's anti-discrimination laws, like any other institution.

She said she wouldn't lobby for an exemption for the church or support any legislation that provides it.

"I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of this state, and our anti-discrimination laws are some of the most important," Healey said.

Her comments came a day after Gov. Mitt Romney met with Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley and said religious institutions should be able to help people without being forced to violate their faith.

. . . more at . . . http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/02/healey_breaks_with_romney_on_gay_adoption_exemption?mode=PF

See also: (DU thread) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x7867