Catholic Charities In Rockford Ending Foster Care, Adoptions Over Gay Rights

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/catholic-charities-in-roc_n_867755.html

Rather than allow unmarried people or same-sex couples to adopt or foster children, Catholic Charities of Rockford, Illinois announced Thursday that they would stop providing foster care services.

The move comes after months of drama in Springfield over an amendment to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, which goes into effect June 1. The law says that if an agency receives state money, it cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, and must treat people in civil unions as it would treat married couples.

When the law was passed, Catholic Charities and other religious and conservative groups pushed for an amendment that would allow faith-based organizations to "decline an adoption or foster family home application" to a couple in a civil union if "if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization's sincerely held religious beliefs." A Senate committee voted down the amendment in April, and a House committee did the same this week.

"The law of our land has always guaranteed its people freedom of religion," Penny Wiegert, the Rockford Diocese's director of communication said in a statement. "Denying this exemption to faith-based agencies leads one to believe that our lawmakers prefer laws that guarantee freedom from religion. We simply can not compromise the spirit that motivates us to deliver quality, professional services to families by letting our state define our religious teachings."

Catholic Charities of Rockford handles about 350 foster family and adoption cases, according to the Rockford Archdiocese. They work with 11 counties in northern Illinois and have a state budget of $7.5 million. Today, the Diocese announced that they would transition out of their current contracts and terminate 58 employees when they drop the program.

Anthony Martinez, executive director of the Civil Rights Agenda, said this is a "sad day" for the foster families and parents involved with Catholic Charities.

"This is a sad display of bigotry by Catholic Charities, and their bigotry will now be harming children in their care," Martinez said in a statement. "It is equally sad that they would invoke 'Freedom of Religion' as they make this announcement. That freedom is granted only when the religious agency is not funded by taxpayer dollars, and they are well aware of that."

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, which has been following the case closely, will make sure the displaced children are taken care of, according to DCFS spokesman Kendall Marlowe.

"We are confident that we will be able to transition these cases to other private agencies," Marlowe said, adding that DCFS works with 45 other agencies that handle foster and adoption cases under contract.

DCFS handled about 1,000 former Catholic Charities cases in 2007 when the Archdiocese of Chicago lost its insurance and could no longer provide the services due to a $12 million lawsuit payment. The 2001 lawsuit alleged that Chicago's Catholic Charities had licensed foster parents who went on to abuse three children placed in their care.

So far, only the Rockford Archdiocese has announced the decision to stop its foster care program, but statewide Catholic Charities handles about 2,500 cases.

"The Catholic Church is not going to be OK with Catholic Charities processing applications from anyone in a civil union," the head of Peoria's Catholic Charities told Chicago Public Radio earlier this month.

If the Catholic Charities in Peoria, Joliet, Springfield and Belleville decide to drop their programs, DCFS will have a much larger caseload to pick up.

Fortunately, Marlowe said, Illinois has a "strong, private sector child welfare community" and--thanks to people like Jane Addams--has some of the oldest child welfare agencies in the country.

Martinez told HuffPost Chicago he was confident DCFS would "be able to quickly put those children into agencies that treat all citizens of Illinois equally."

I realize this is from HuffPo, but if it's all as the article says, its pretty stupid of these charities. What part of if you get state funds, you can't discriminate is so difficult to understand?
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
What part of the article don't you understand. It clearly says the Catholic Charities is DROPPING State funding.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
What part of the article don't you understand. It clearly says the Catholic Charities is DROPPING State funding.

Only because they have to, not because they want to. They want to continue to receive state funds and discriminate.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I don't see what the big deal is. A private organization has the freedom to choose to do something or choose not to do something as they please.

zsdersw - you should fill the void in the marketplace and start up your own foster care service in the Rockford area. Aren't going to do it? What a shame...


"DCFS handled about 1,000 former Catholic Charities cases in 2007 when the Archdiocese of Chicago lost its insurance and could no longer provide the services due to a $12 million lawsuit payment. The 2001 lawsuit alleged that Chicago's Catholic Charities had licensed foster parents who went on to abuse three children placed in their care."

That's crazy. Sue the foster parents, not cripple an organization trying to do good in this world. Why would anyone want to put up with that kind of liability?


Interesting reading this line:
"Martinez told HuffPost Chicago he was confident DCFS would "be able to quickly put those children into agencies that treat all citizens of Illinois equally."

when Catholic Charities tried to treat citizens equally in the past they were sued for $12m.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I don't see what the big deal is. A private organization has the freedom to choose to do something or choose not to do something as they please.

That's right.. they do. But they shouldn't expect to get public money and be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

zsdersw - you should fill the void in the marketplace and start up your own foster care service in the Rockford area. Aren't going to do it? What a shame...

If I had the money to do so, I would.

not cripple an organization trying to do good in this world.

Do good in this world so long as you're not a homosexual couple who needs adoption or foster care services.
 
Last edited:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
I don't see what the big deal is. A private organization has the freedom to choose to do something or choose not to do something as they please.

zsdersw - you should fill the void in the marketplace and start up your own foster care service in the Rockford area. Aren't going to do it? What a shame...


I'd think this is the bigger reason for their dropping the service:
"DCFS handled about 1,000 former Catholic Charities cases in 2007 when the Archdiocese of Chicago lost its insurance and could no longer provide the services due to a $12 million lawsuit payment. The 2001 lawsuit alleged that Chicago's Catholic Charities had licensed foster parents who went on to abuse three children placed in their care."

That's crazy. Sue the foster parents, not cripple an organization trying to do good in this world.

yeah.

though i have to say Il Foster care is fucked up. To qualify to be a foster parent its rather easy. I know a few who just house the kids for the money (can make decent amount if you have a few kids) and don't give a shit about them.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Only because they have to, not because they want to. They want to continue to receive state funds and discriminate.

The problem is you want to hide behind the word "discriminate". Get over yourself. Learn a larger vocabulary.

You should be excited now that the organization is not discriminating against anyone. We are better off now than we were before, correct?
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Ok. Well, I guess I don't understand the point of this thread.

neither do I. The State is mandating any organization recieving State funds allow for gay or unmarried couples to adopt. Catholic Charities disagrees so has chosen to drop out of the program.

So what is the issue? A private organization does not have the right to choose?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
The problem is you want to hide behind the word "discriminate". Get over yourself. Learn a larger vocabulary.

:rolleyes: Get a grip.

You should be excited now that the organization is not discriminating against anyone. We are better off now than we were before, correct?

Yes, I'm glad they're no longer getting state money... but it's still stupid of them to discriminate in the first place.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
neither do I. The State is mandating any organization recieving State funds allow for gay or unmarried couples to adopt. Catholic Charities disagrees so has chosen to drop out of the program.

So what is the issue? A private organization does not have the right to choose?

Who says there has to be an issue? It's good they're no longer receiving public money, but it's still stupid (IMO) that they discriminate in the first place. Of course they have the right to, but not with public money... which is what they wanted to continue doing.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/catholic-charities-in-roc_n_867755.html



I realize this is from HuffPo, but if it's all as the article says, its pretty stupid of these charities. What part of if you get state funds, you can't discriminate is so difficult to understand?

This is exactly why I refuse to support gay marriage. This is just one of the many examples. It will be never ending. This is a religous organization that has a belief in a family structure of a man and woman. So rather than go against the foundation of what they believe they drop the services and you still complain. I bet they didn't give kids to anyone who didn't fit the traditional definition of marriage regardless if they were gay. So many of the folks who want to adopt using this relgious based organization now can't, because they don't believe in a gay lifestyle.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I think it's a very sad story. The real losers have no say in the outcome.

It's quite sad that an organization would rather refuse certain people on the basis of sexual orientation than abide by public rules for the use of the public funding they receive. They'd rather refuse homosexual couples who need adoption or foster care services than help everyone in need. Truly sad, especially for a religious charity.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Who says there has to be an issue? It's good they're no longer receiving public money, but it's still stupid (IMO) that they discriminate in the first place. Of course they have the right to, but not with public money... which is what they wanted to continue doing.

Well in every vote, in every state, the PUBLIC has voted to not support gay marriage. So this organization has not done anything that the majority of the public has proven time and time again they agree with.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
This is exactly why I refuse to support gay marriage. This is just one of the many examples. It will be never ending. This is a religous organization that has a belief in a family structure of a man and woman. So rather than go against the foundation of what they believe they drop the services and you still complain. I bet they didn't give kids to anyone who didn't fit the traditional definition of marriage regardless if they were gay. So many of the folks who want to adopt using this relgious based organization now can't, because they don't believe in a gay lifestyle.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage. Stop making imaginary barriers to your support of it.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
It's quite sad that an organization would rather refuse certain people on the basis of sexual orientation than abide by public rules for the use of the public funding they receive. They'd rather refuse homosexual couples who need adoption or foster care services than help everyone in need. Truly sad, especially for a religious charity.

And equally sad that we defund an organization that helps children sheerly on the basis that they don't agree with the the public stance on same-sex couples.

Ironic that religious people get criticized for imposing morality on others. Of course they do. Just like everyone else.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Well in every vote, in every state, the PUBLIC has voted to not support gay marriage. So this organization has not done anything that the majority of the public has proven time and time again they agree with.

Uh.. ever heard of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC?

Illinois is very close to approving civil unions, too... so your argument about what the public wants fails too.
 
Last edited:

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,874
2,740
136
It's quite sad that an organization would rather refuse certain people on the basis of sexual orientation than abide by public rules for the use of the public funding they receive. They'd rather refuse homosexual couples who need adoption or foster care services than help everyone in need. Truly sad, especially for a religious charity.

It goes against their core beliefs, like Classy said they probably didn't let single people or couples that aren't married adopt either. I'm not religious and I fully support gay marriage, but you're making a bigger deal out of this than you should and it only hurts your cause.