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

[werepossum]

There is nothing ironic at all. If this organization knowingly stood on these principles but then looked the other way at the preists perversion then it would be ironic. But that is not what happened. You know as well as I more than likely the porn couple would be rejected. The ideal should not be dismissed or somehow not strived for because of the failures of others.

That is your premise and it is flawed. The argument, but look at these is not an argument at all, but an excuse. Because in the end all those in error should be corrected.

Let's look at it this way. Flash forward a few months and gay marriage is now legal in Illinois. You have two married couples, one homo and one hetero. All four are good people. The hetero couple is as poor as church mice; both parents have to work to make ends meet, and they have to live in a rather run-down and not particularly safe part of the city with failing schools. They'll love the child, but it will have to stay in day care during the day, attend the failing public schools, play in a park where crack heads and discarded needles and condoms are not uncommon. The homo couple includes one very successful attorney and one homemaker; they live in a very nice part of town, with a nice big fenced yard, nice neighbors. They're going to place the child in an excellent private school. Again, all four people are pillars of the community, all four will love the child, all four regularly attend church, none are Catholic. Who gets the child?

How far should we go? I'm all for favoring a traditional man-woman married couple for adoption if all else is equal, but since all else is seldom equal, at what point do we say a homosexual couple is not a better choice for the child simply by virtue of being homosexual?

There are other gradations as well. Suppose you have a young black girl to be adopted. Is an affluent young married lesbian couple, one or more of whom is black, a worse choice than a poor, white, hetero couple in their fifties living in a rural area with no other black people and few kids? No one has to teach her to be a man, after all. (And yes, obviously no one has to teach her to be black either, but most children are happiest if they don't obviously stand out as different.)

My point is that we should be considering ONLY what is best for the child, and in that consideration there are many factors. If we make one factor all-important, we probably have to compromise on other factors that might be much more important to a child's well-being. I'd be willing to bet that children of reasonably affluent, married homosexual couples are on balance happier and more successful than children of poor, inner city married couples as a whole, if only because of the disparity in opportunities.

 

[PokerGuy]

Aren't Catholics supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus?

Are you somehow an authority on the teachings of Jesus? I think not. They do (try to) follow them. Just because you don't like the teachings doesn't mean they're not being followed.

 

[zsdersw]

Because the couple came to them asking for a child to adopt.

So? That doesn't make their sex lives the charity's business.

If they are going to a catholic charity asking to adopt a child when...

1. The husband is engaging in homosexual acts, and
2. The husband is willingly cheating on the wife with her consent

then either they are very stupid about what catholics believe to be sinful, or are deliberately trying to trick them.

What if they don't care what the Catholic church finds sinful? What if they don't believe it's the Catholic church's business? If they're not aware or made aware of any rule requiring disclosure of the details of their sex lives, there's no reason they must volunteer that information.

 

[zsdersw]

Religion is evil anyway, so you should rejoice that they aren't going to help anyone. Not a single "amen" will be heard. It's what many dream of.

You're not an expert on what I should do.

 

[zsdersw]

Let's look at it this way. Flash forward a few months and gay marriage is now legal in Illinois. You have two married couples, one homo and one hetero. All four are good people. The hetero couple is as poor as church mice; both parents have to work to make ends meet, and they have to live in a rather run-down and not particularly safe part of the city with failing schools. They'll love the child, but it will have to stay in day care during the day, attend the failing public schools, play in a park where crack heads and discarded needles and condoms are not uncommon. The homo couple includes one very successful attorney and one homemaker; they live in a very nice part of town, with a nice big fenced yard, nice neighbors. They're going to place the child in an excellent private school. Again, all four people are pillars of the community, all four will love the child, all four regularly attend church, none are Catholic. Who gets the child?

How far should we go? I'm all for favoring a traditional man-woman married couple for adoption if all else is equal, but since all else is seldom equal, at what point do we say a homosexual couple is not a better choice for the child simply by virtue of being homosexual?

There are other gradations as well. Suppose you have a young black girl to be adopted. Is an affluent young married lesbian couple, one or more of whom is black, a worse choice than a poor, white, hetero couple in their fifties living in a rural area with no other black people and few kids? No one has to teach her to be a man, after all. (And yes, obviously no one has to teach her to be black either, but most children are happiest if they don't obviously stand out as different.)

My point is that we should be considering ONLY what is best for the child, and in that consideration there are many factors. If we make one factor all-important, we probably have to compromise on other factors that might be much more important to a child's well-being. I'd be willing to bet that children of reasonably affluent, married homosexual couples are on balance happier and more successful than children of poor, inner city married couples as a whole, if only because of the disparity in opportunities.

Exactly.

Leave It To Beaver was nice... and it may still be the "ideal"... but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's a realistic expectation for adoption/foster care.

 

[Atreus21]

So? That doesn't make their sex lives the charity's business.

What if they don't care what the Catholic church finds sinful? What if they don't believe it's the Catholic church's business? If they're not aware or made aware of any rule requiring disclosure of the details of their sex lives, there's no reason they must volunteer that information.

1. The church DOES care about these things. That is simply a fact.
2. The couple either knows that or doesn't.

So either:

3. The couple knows that, and only gains an adoption by tricking them, or
4. The couple doesn't know that, and only gains an adoption by sheer luck.

4 is extraordinarily unlikely.

Are you going to say that the adoption agency shouldn't be allowed to place babies on the basis of their morality? That's essentially where your argument is going.

 

[zsdersw]

1. The church DOES care about these things. That is simply a fact.
2. The couple either knows that or doesn't.

So either:

3. The couple knows that, and only gains an adoption by tricking them, or
4. The couple doesn't know that, and only gains an adoption by sheer luck.

4 is extraordinarily unlikely.

Are you going to say that the adoption agency shouldn't be allowed to place babies on the basis of their morality? That's essentially where your argument is going.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that unless they're asked, they have no specific obligation to reveal details about their sex lives... regardless of what the church believes or cares about.

The couple clearly doesn't have a problem with their sex lives, so since the church does it's up to the church to ask about things that trouble them. It's not trickery to not reveal something you were never asked about.

 

[Atreus21]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that unless they're asked, they have no specific obligation to reveal details about their sex lives... regardless of what the church believes or cares about.

The couple clearly doesn't have a problem with their sex lives, so since the church does it's up to the church to ask about things that trouble them. It's not trickery to not reveal something you were never asked about.

Right. But don't you think they would know enough about catholics to suspect that they MIGHT have a problem not only with adultery, not only with consensual adultery, not only with consensual adultery with other men (by the husband), but with multiple cases of such? The very LEAST of their transgressions in the Catholic view, adultery, would be enough to disqualify them. In fact, I'd bet most adoption agencies would have a problem with it.

It seems to me a grossly unrealistic example to have a couple engaging in these acts having no suspicion that their behavior might be slightly out of the societal mainstream, to say nothing of what the catholic church finds acceptable.

But assuming your example is nonetheless true: Even if they adopted successfully, it would only be because somehow, though ignorant of the requirements, they navigated a complicated and scrutinizing screening process by sheer luck. Which means the agency would've been misled. Which, intentional or not, is still trickery.

 

[zsdersw]

Right. But don't you think they would know enough about catholics to suspect that they MIGHT have a problem not only with adultery, not only with consensual adultery, not only with consensual adultery with other men (by the husband), but with multiple cases of such?

It seems to me a grossly unrealistic example to have a couple engaging in these acts having no suspicion that their behavior might be slightly out of the societal mainstream, to say nothing of what the catholic church finds acceptable.

They probably would know such things, but that doesn't change anything. If the Catholic charity isn't going to ask about stuff that bothers them, the fault is with the charity for not asking... not the couple for not volunteering information.

If I were a part of that couple and the Catholic charity didn't ask me if I have sex outside of my marriage, I'd assume they didn't care about it enough to use it as a disqualifier for adoption.

But assuming your example is nonetheless true: Even if they adopted successfully, it would only be because somehow, though ignorant of the requirements, they navigated a complicated and scrutinizing screening process by sheer luck. Which means the agency would've been misled. Which, intentional or not, is still trickery.

If the agency doesn't ask, they misled and tricked themselves.

 

[Atreus21]

They probably would know such things, but that doesn't change anything. If the Catholic charity isn't going to ask about stuff that bothers them, the fault is with the charity for not asking... not the couple for not volunteering information.

If I were a part of that couple and the Catholic charity didn't ask me if I have sex outside of my marriage, I'd assume they didn't care about it enough to use it as a disqualifier for adoption.

I disagree. That's dishonest. If you withhold relevant information from a screening process in which that information will affect the result, even if you're not asked, that's dishonest.

If I cheated on my spouse (not a perfect comparison to your example, but nonetheless) and she didn't happen to ask me about it, I would still be dishonest. Why? Because:

1. She would be very interested to know this information
2. I, the cheating husband, know she would be interested in knowing this, and
3. It would make a huge difference to her if she did know.

My marriage is only sustained by her ignorance, and my secrecy.

Another facet of this argument is that it's not only dishonest, it's disrespectful; even contemptuous. In the example of cheating on my wife, withholding that information that I know she would interested to know is not treating her respectfully. Rather, it is taking advantage of the fact that she trusts me.

Again, comparing the adopter and the adoption agency to a husband-and-wife relationship is not exactly congruent, but I think my description of the dishonesty in withholding information is.

 

[zsdersw]

I disagree. That's dishonest. If you withhold relevant information from a screening process in which that information will affect the result, even if you're not asked, that's dishonest.

If I cheated on my spouse (not a perfect comparison to your example, but nonetheless) and she didn't happen to ask me about it, I would still be dishonest. Why? Because:

1. She would be very interested to know this information
2. I, the cheating husband, know she would be interested in knowing this, and
3. It would make a huge difference to her if she did know.

My marriage is only sustained by her ignorance, and my secrecy.

Another facet of this argument is that it's not only dishonest, it's disrespectful; even contemptuous. In the example of cheating on my wife, withholding that information that I know she would interested to know is not treating her respectfully. Rather, it is taking advantage of the fact that she trusts me.

Again, comparing the adopter and the adoption agency to a husband-and-wife relationship is not exactly congruent, but I think my description of the dishonesty in withholding information is.

I disagree. It's not a congruent comparison at all. Adoption screening is a serious thing... and if a Catholic charity doesn't ask about things serious enough to them to warrant disqualification, the fault is with their screening process for not asking... not with applicants who don't answer questions they weren't asked.

A screening process is supposed to be thorough. It's not unreasonable to expect that a Catholic charity wouldn't forget to include questions about their big moral "no-no's". During such a screening, applicants are probably busy thinking about the questions they're being asked.. not ones they aren't being asked.

 

[Atreus21]

I disagree. It's not a congruent comparison at all. Adoption screening is a serious thing... and if a Catholic charity doesn't ask about things serious enough to them to warrant disqualification, the fault is with their screening process for not asking... not with applicants who don't answer questions they weren't asked.

Shrug.

I guess that's where we simply disagree then. I think the couple shoulders responsibility as well.

And the failure to disclose all reasonably relevant information, even if left unasked, is dishonest.

 

[zsdersw]

And the failure to disclose all reasonably relevant information, even if left unasked, is dishonest.

If a Catholic charity doesn't ask a question like that, the information wouldn't seem relevant. The expectation is that they're going to ask you about extra-marital sex. If they don't, it would seem to me that they don't consider it important enough to ask.

Dishonesty and trickery involve and imply the making of a decision to withhold the truth. What if no such decision was made and the information was still not revealed?