It seems that the Catholic adoption agency in Boston wants to shut down because by law they are not allow to discriminate who can apply for an adoption. The Catholic Church finds that it is immoral for gays to adopt so they would rather shut down than have a gay couple raise a child. I have a problem with this right away; IMO a child is much better off in a loving relationship -- whether it is a hetero or homo relationship -- than to grow up in an institution. But going beyond this idea -- the church is so against abortion and always encourage women to give their babies up for adoption if they don't want them. And now they are willing to shut down their adoption center? Isn't this a bit irrational?
Here's is the story
*****************************************************
03-15-06, 08:21 PM
DorianGreyed
from the article -

The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the statement added. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work."

The announcement of the decision means they have abandoned plans to wage a political and legal battle to win an exemption from state anti-discrimination laws, and are eager to align themselves with the Vatican's pronouncements made in a 2003 document that say gay adoptions are "gravely immoral."

The state's four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral. Eight members of Catholic Charities board later stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.

Over the past two decades, the agency has helped 720 children find adoptive homes, 13 of whom were placed with same-sex couples. More than half of the children it helps place are foster children who have been abused or neglected.


The agency also has a food pantry, day care, and immigration assistance. Is it against the same church teaching to provide those services for gays? If not, it must be that the church either wants to prevent the children from being "turned into gays" or to punish gays who want to adopt. Either way, the church doesn't look good. The entire board ought to resign, not just eight of them.

03-15-06, 08:25 PM
honilov
To shut down the adoption center really seems like the wrong thing to do.

03-15-06, 10:07 PM
gerry
The Catholic church's position on marriage is clear: it is a union between man and woman in a loving relationship with the purpose of procreation. Since gays can't have kids, gay marriage is considered immoral. That's why birth control is also considered immoral. Right or wrong, at least the church is consistent in its beliefs: anti-abortion, anti- death penalty, anti birth control, and anti gay marriage. While the majority of the US population disagree with her teachings on the first three, they sure do support the latter. The official position of the church in this matter is not anti gay, it is just their position on the 'sanctity' of marriage. As such, it is not that they want to close the adoption arm of Catholic Charities (from whom , BTW, I adopted one of my children many moons ago), rather, it feels it must close it rather than violate its basic beliefs. As i said, they are very consistent and steadfast, unwavering, in the Church's teachings, but hey, consistency aside, let's face it, the Church is run by a bunch of old men and brainwashed servants who don't have a clue about reality.

03-15-06, 10:13 PM
DorianGreyed
"The Catholic church's position on marriage is clear: it is a union between man and woman in a loving relationship with the purpose of procreation. Since gays can't have kids, gay marriage is considered immoral."

So, once a woman is past childbearing years, if she isn't married, she can't get married, I guess.

03-16-06, 09:26 AM
VelvetVoice
DG: That is the church's position, that a woman past childbearing years is not to get married. I got married in the Catholic Church, and the priest said he would not marry us unless we agreed to have children. At the time, we didn't want kids right away, so he gave us a hard time. We were to be married in a Bridgeport church in a poor section of town, and there were several women who brought their babies for baptism. Ed was working for the State DCF at the time, and he had an arguement with the priest about children and their care.

Also, there is a passage in the Bible that older women should remain single, but it is not a rule, just a suggestion, and that younger women should marry rather than burn with passion.

03-16-06, 09:36 AM
DorianGreyed
It would seem, then, that the Catholic church wants older men to marry younger women, if the older men are to be married at all. Hmmmm...Maybe I left the church in haste, and should rejoin.

03-16-06, 11:05 AM
gerry
I am not aware of the Catholic Church forbidding marriage between a man and a woman either or both of whom are incapable of producing kinder. As long as it is a natural cause, like menopause or sterility, it is fine. Just like Birth Control using the 'Rythym' method is acceptable, because it is a natural barrier to childbirth during this part of the cycle, not a chosen one. Vasectomies, tubal ligation, and the like, are strictly prohibited, since sex would just be for the 'fun' of it, and not for procreation, and be very sinful. And of course, no condoms, please!

03-16-06, 12:21 PM
VelvetVoice
Sex is supposed to be a joyful exchange between a man and wife. I have a problem with 'no sex for the fun of it'. The Bible says 'do not keep yourselves from one another, except in times of prayer'. Sex is never sinful when kept within the bounds of marriage.

03-16-06, 12:50 PM
babthrower

quote:
Originally posted by gerry:
"... at least the church is consistent in its beliefs: anti-abortion, anti- death penalty..."



What! What Catholic Church are you talking about?

Not the one I grew up in, which was the Universal, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church whose head was Pope Pius IX (1876-1958) in the Vatican, and he's now a candidate for sainthood.

The one I grew up in is the one who tortured tens of thousands of people and then handed them over to a colluding state government to be "put to death in the most merciful way possible", which as it turned out was to be burned alive at the stake.

And the nuns and priests justified it to us on the grounds that the torture was meant to give them a taste of hell if they did not recant; so it was 'loving'. And the final death by fire? It was to send them to hell since they would not recant, and teach a loving lesson to others.

This policiy persisted for hundreds of years. All in the name of a gentle and loving Jesus.

This is the church that granted wholesale indulgences for any sins whatsoever to men who would go on a crusade. The indulgence lasted also during the duration of the crusade, so the venery and sacking of cities, even Christian cities, along the way to the Holy Land was wholesale.

The crusaders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims who would not convert on the spot. The popes' response? Call for more crusades.

03-16-06, 04:17 PM
coldfuse
KG - and I apologize if I overlooked the point anywhere above - is this not a move to maintain the integrity of their tax exemption? I hate that some kids will suffer for this, but it is reality in a world where some want churches to pay taxes. Our reading and interpretation of the second amendment over the years has shifted to perilous ground, and the Roman Catholic Church may wish to stay on safe footing.

03-16-06, 06:30 PM
Rakuchild

quote:
Originally posted by VelvetVoice:
Sex is supposed to be a joyful exchange between a man and wife. I have a problem with 'no sex for the fun of it'. The Bible says 'do not keep yourselves from one another, except in times of prayer'. Sex is never sinful when kept within the bounds of marriage.

Hmm...I've always found it to be a more joyous exchange out of the bounds of marriage...but then I'm not into the whole bondage thing.

Babthrower- loving torture...again, with the whole B&D scene... Wink


They don't want to allow adoption to gay couples, then perhaps it's best they get out of the business. I feel anyone who is willing to take on the role of parent to a child who isn't theirs should be permitted to do so. In my experience, the few gay couples I've known that adopted have done a great job of parenting because they love kids and because everyone expects them to fail, so they try harder.

03-17-06, 09:23 AM
GarColga

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:

quote:
Originally posted by gerry:
"... at least the church is consistent in its beliefs: anti-abortion, anti- death penalty..."



What! What Catholic Church are you talking about?

Not the one I grew up in, which was the Universal, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church whose head was Pope Pius IX (1876-1958) in the Vatican, and he's now a candidate for sainthood.

The one I grew up in is the one who tortured tens of thousands of people and then handed them over to a colluding state government to be "put to death in the most merciful way possible", which as it turned out was to be burned alive at the stake.

And the nuns and priests justified it to us on the grounds that the torture was meant to give them a taste of hell if they did not recant; so it was 'loving'. And the final death by fire? It was to send them to hell since they would not recant, and teach a loving lesson to others.

This policiy persisted for hundreds of years. All in the name of a gentle and loving Jesus.

This is the church that granted wholesale indulgences for any sins whatsoever to men who would go on a crusade. The indulgence lasted also during the duration of the crusade, so the venery and sacking of cities, even Christian cities, along the way to the Holy Land was wholesale.

The crusaders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims who would not convert on the spot. The popes' response? Call for more crusades.



Babthrower, come on! Today's Catholics are as horrified by these things as anybody else. They are not responsible for events that occurred 500 years ago. I don't see how your polemic weighs against gerry's statement anyway.

Also, I find it hard to believe that in grade school, your instructers went into any detail on the Inquisitions!

03-17-06, 12:01 PM
babthrower
Gar, I'm not attacking to-day's Roman Catholics. (I specifiy Roman Catholics so as not to tar Greek Orthodox and other Catholics with the same brush -- they had no inquisition.)

I think the nuns and priests were just covering bases when they taught the inquisition. They knew we would encounter accusations as we grew older and mixed with what one of my nuns, Sister Joseph, called 'unCatholics'. They covered it briefly, justifying it as I have outlined above, and glossing over the details of the tortures, but admitting to the burnings.

The details I learned later.

Today's Catholics are innocent of wrongdoing. But I think you must admit that what I said was:

" The one I grew up in is the one who tortured tens of thousands of people and then handed them over to a colluding state government to be "put to death in the most merciful way possible", which as it turned out was to be burned alive at the stake."

Meaning the church I grew up in. Not meaning to-days' Catholics that I grew up in.

See, the Roman Catholic church has consistently claimed to be one, holy, apostolic, universal, direct unbroken line from Peter, unchanging, incapable of doctrinal error, etc. etc.,

Having made and maintained those claims since it was invented by Constantine, it cannot escape that which logically follows:

people will pick at it when it changes its teachings.

'Course, then the waffling starts:

-My goodness, that pope wasn't serious when he said that!
- Those people were not true Roman Catholics! (Those who practiced genocide on the Albigensians, and so many others.)
- The Inquisition never killed anyone! It was the Roman Catholic heads of state that killed people!

And so on.

But I have no patience with Inquisition Deniers trying to sweep embarrassing facts under the rug.

Continue this discussion if you wish in a new thread.

03-17-06, 12:07 PM
GarColga

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
G
Today's Catholics are innocent of wrongdoing. But I think you must admit that what I said was:

" The one I grew up in is the one who tortured tens of thousands of people

Wow! You are much older than I thought!

03-17-06, 01:07 PM
babthrower
Oh, excuse me! I thought you were talking about the Roman Catholic Church founded by Peter the Apostle. But you're talking about a different one! Not the one whose popes presided over the inquisition at all! Not the one I grew up in! Not the one that called for the crusades!

Gosh, a different one!

When was it founded, and by whom?

Is it the "Old Catholics", who split from Rome in 1870 over the doctrine of papal infallibility?

Is it the breakaway sect that follows parish priest Ned Reidy, which rejects papal infallibility and Vatican authority, endorses women priests and married priests, affirms and blesses same-sex unions, welcomes all to the Eucharist regardless of denomination or faith tradition, welcomes those who are divorced and remarried and practices a democratic form of church governance.

Or a more conservative one, such as the True Catholics, who bailed out after Vatican II?

Or perhaps something entirely different?

03-17-06, 01:17 PM
FredPuli
But it was the one that taught the infant who became, much later, Mrs FP that anyone, Christian or not, who was not a Roman Catholic was doomed to burn in Hell. She remembers her fellow schoolgirls taunting Protestant children with this 'fact'. And this was not in sectarian Northern Ireland. It was in non-sectarian, mostly Protestant, Lancashire , England.

Still it was an improvement on actually burning dissenters at the stake.

03-17-06, 02:04 PM
babthrower
I had a very nice little friend name Ann who lived next door in the little town I lived in during the WWII years, when my dad had a defense plant job. I was RC, she was protestant, and we went to separate schools.

I loved Ann and her little brother Carl, and I was terribly upset to think that she and her baby brother would burn for all eternity. So I had a little chat with her one day, and warned her of her fate if she did not convert to my church. She burst into tears, and said she was afraid her parents wouldn't let her bcome Roman Catholic. I told her that she should become Roman Catholic as soon as possible, and that I could baptise her if she had to keep it secret. (I had just been confirmed.) She went home in tears. The next time I saw her, she was acting very wary of me. Slowly we became friends again. I knew there was no point in trying to convert her, she had talked to her mother. All I could do was fear for her and pray for her conversion.

A year later, in catechism class, I took my first step toward becoming, first an agnostic, and later an atheist. It was right after Sr. Joseph told us why we must hate the Jews.

I remember thinking, "Hey, wait a minute. I thought you just taught us that Jesus wanted to come to earth and die for our sins." And I couldn't imagine the good Jesus hating the Jews.

03-17-06, 05:17 PM
Rakuchild
Hmmm...seems the Southern Baptists I grew up around have a lot in common with the Roman Catholics. They believed the Catholics were all going to burn in hell because they worshipped idols. Smile And they both had a fondness for burning things...people, books, my Cheech and Chong album. Both don't trust the Jews. Don't accept people who are gay. Wow! Who knew?

I believe the Catholics and Southern Baptists have taught some of us a lot about being atheists/agnostics/pagans.

03-17-06, 05:34 PM
juanruiz

quote:
Pope Pius IX (1876-1958)

That would be Pius XII.


03-17-06, 05:37 PM
honilov

quote:
I believe the Catholics and Southern Baptists have taught some of us a lot about being atheists/agnostics/pagans.

That may be so in some cases, but this is something that people teach themselves and make their own choices.

03-17-06, 06:20 PM
sheanima

quote:
Originally posted by VelvetVoice:
Sex is supposed to be a joyful exchange between a man and wife.

Ideally, yes, but not always possible in the real world. By the way, that's husband and wife. He was already a man before he married. Wink

03-17-06, 07:00 PM
Scotty

quote:
I believe the Catholics and Southern Baptists have taught some of us a lot about being atheists/agnostics/pagans.

Any excuse will do.
I believe that most people learn it on their own.

03-17-06, 07:51 PM
GarColga

quote:
Originally posted by Rakuchild:

I believe the Catholics and Southern Baptists have taught some of us a lot about being atheists/agnostics/pagans.

Please don't lump me together with pagans, neo-pagans whatever. Their beliefs are just as goofy as any theists!

03-17-06, 08:42 PM
babthrower

quote:


[I had said] Pope Pius IX (1876-1958)

JR said:

That would be Pius XII.

Thanx for the correction JR. You're right, as usual.

quote:


Raku said:

"I believe the Catholics and Southern Baptists have taught some of us a lot about being atheists/agnostics/pagans."



There are some churches that hate each other more than others. Baptists dread a Roman Catholic president.

The Irish 'Orangemen' (I think they're a cross between Scottish Presbyterians and English Anglicans) are virulently anti-RC, and vice versa.

One Baptist lady said, when she heard JFK had been elected, "Well, we know the wine will flow in the White House now."

Some of this suspicion is bigoted, but some is based on fear that certain values will be promoted just because of some O.T. text, or some papal edict, without relevance to today's problems.

I can sympathize.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: babthrower, 03-17-06 09:20 PM

03-18-06, 12:54 PM
frankvan

quote:
Originally posted by Scotty:

quote:
I believe the Catholics and Southern Baptists have taught some of us a lot about being atheists/agnostics/pagans.



Any excuse will do.
I believe that most people learn it on their own.



On the other hand, some people never learn anything beyond what they were spoon-fed at their mama's knee - or some other low joint. Wink

03-18-06, 01:10 PM
Scotty

quote:
On the other hand, some people never learn anything beyond what they were spoon-fed at their mama's knee - or some other low joint.



In that case,I feel sorry for you,Frank. Big Grin

03-18-06, 06:10 PM
frankvan
Not to be nit-picky, but general rule for punctuation calls for space after comma, in this country. Wink

03-19-06, 10:26 AM
Scotty

quote:
Not to be nit-picky, but general rule for punctuation calls for space after comma, in this country.

So shoot me.

03-19-06, 10:43 AM
frankvan

quote:
So shoot me.


Seems a bit drastic! Smile

03-19-06, 11:00 AM
babthrower
Not in Scotty's book. Standard form of reprimand. Eek

03-19-06, 04:05 PM
MrsS
We seem to have gotten a little off topic.
You all know I favor the rights of those with "Alternative Lifestyles", even when that means accepting Catholicism.
On the issue of the Church choosing to close an adoption bureau rather than facilitate adoptions by same sex couples, that is absolutely their right. I abhor the sentiment but I believe that no religion must be forced to sanction what is in direct opposition to its teachings. THAT is the other end of the seperation of Church and State. Any adoption agency recieving public(taxpayer) funding had, in my eyes, better not base its placement decisions on the genders of prospective parents, but a private agency certainly has the right.

03-20-06, 12:37 PM
DvdGStwrt
That’s good, after all adopting a catholic baby would be hard to explain and lead to embarrassing questions. I would rather adopt Hindu or Buddhist; they are not as noticeable as Catholics you see……

My ‘stupid answer’ reflects how stupid I think it is that the Adoption Agency wants to enforce such silly beliefs. Just as silly as it is to not adopt a catholic child due to its being catholic is just as silly as to not adopt to parents because of they sexuality.

From a Church that has a problem with keeping its priests in check, I think that it should sit on its laurels a few generations until that slips out of the memory of society. The Church’s handling of years, decades of child abuse in its sacred halls demonstrates that it is unable to decide what is right or wrong when it comes to who can and can not adopt.

I have no doubt that the more recent attacks on the GLBT community by The Church is to turn our attention away from its disgraceful acts and reactions to years of child abuse within its ranks. Personally I do not see the Catholic Church as being worthy of running adoption/orphanages or foster care programs due to its inability to protect children from its priesthood.

Other recent changes in the church suggest to me that it believes that our society needs to continue with the lie that homosexuals are predators over so called “straight” people. Targeting Gays in its priesthood suggests that it was “gay priests” who molested children thus taking the heat off the Church for its crimes. In fact from the changes and the hell bent new persecution of the Gays the Church is working very hard to demonize homosexuals and make them into the scapegoat.

But then we are dealing with a sexually repressed and aberrant religious community that places far too much importance on sex, sexuality and marriage (or lack thereof for its priesthood/nuns) than it does on God, Love and Jesus.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,