Catholic Charities dissents from Church teaching

27 comments

• Read 1 and 2 Kings.  Then read 1 and 2 Chronicles.  Then read Revelation.

  Notice a history of leaders who “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord”, and those who “did what was wicked in the eyes of the Lord.”  Some sin by not doing as their fathers did.  Others are virtuous by NOT doing what our fathers did.

  This younger generation will have to atone by NOT doing what our father’s did, by and large.

  In the books I mentioned, at least from the OT, God by that point was mostly done with ordering the executions of the idolaters.  Instead, he just let their enemies overtake them, destroy their places of worship, and scatter them.

  Sound like anything that’s happening today, especially in “progressive” (apostate) Dioceses?  Good priests being driven away by the people, bankruptcy, closings, etc.

  There is nothing new under the sun.

• It was Bishop Richard G. Lennon, interim administrator of the Archdioces in 2003, rather than Cardinal Law, who refused to take Voice of the Faithful money. According to the press report at the time, Catholic Charities accepted the money saying, “their obligation to the poor is greater than their obligation to their bishop.”

  The year before it had come to light that Howard M Brown, a professional social worker employed by Catholic Charities, was a long time volunteer “escort” at Planned Parenthood’s local abortion facility. When this came to light, Catholic Charities refused to fire him on the theory that what he did on his own time was his business, and also the fear that Brown might take legal action if dismissed.

  Catholic Charities gets a substantial majority of its funding from government sources, and a much smaller amount from Catholic institutions and individuals. Its board of directors is ecumenical, rather than Catholic. Under these circumstances it is folly to think that Catholic Charities might willingly toe the Catholic line on sensitive issues such as homosexual adoption or even abortion. As they say, “Take the Queen’s shilling – take the Queen’s command.” Or better, “The shackle follows the shekel.”

  The best thing for all concerned would be for Catholic Charities to be renamed (relinquishing “Catholic” in its title), and to be reestablished as a charitable entity totally independent from the Archdiocese.

• The bishops are doing the right thing.  This is a time to be supporting them and telling others to listen to Christ’s representatives on Earth.

• Correction, they’ve only started to do the right thing. They need to do the rest of the job and clean up Catholic Charities.

• I don’t know Peter Meade—I’ve met him a couple of times and seem to recall interviewing him—and so wouldn’t dare vouching for who he is at heart, but I suspect he falls into that category of prominent lay Catholics who have supported the Church and its charities, through thick and thin, in the belief that Christ’s injunctions call upon them to reduce the suffering of all God’s children.  In this, I suspect he and other members of the board of Catholic Charities have, after prayerful consideration, arrived at the view that Catholic Charities can do more good by facilitating the adoption of the most damaged and vulnerable children in the foster care gulag—irrespective of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents—than letting these children remain in the perdition of the foster care system.

  I have little doubt that Meade or Archbishop Sean would much rather that these kids—many of whom were burdened at birth by various maladies—were more attractive to traditional families.  But the fact is that they are not.  So, the question arises, is it better for these children to be placed with homosexual couples who will love them deeply or to be left to the caprices of a foster care system that often results in horrible abuses?

  When one considers how few of the adoptions Catholic Charities has facilitated over the past decade have involved gay parents—I think it’s about 7%—it’s hard for me, at least, to appreciate what all the fuss is about nor understand why Meade should be regarded as a pariah.  At least not if one’s priority is on the best interests of the children involved.

• Tony, the issue is that Rome has spoken, as have adults who have grown up from similar situations, this is not what is good for the children.  The archdiocese should not only stop allowing gays to adopt (and tell the state we don’t care what they say, we won’t do it, even if required by law) but tell lay Catholics to adopt Catholics.

• So, the question arises, is it better for these children to be placed with homosexual couples who will love them deeply or to be left to the caprices of a foster care system that often results in horrible abuses?

  Tony,

  The question didn’t just arise. It arose and has been answered by the hierarchy.

  Peter Meade et al are looking at this issue, not through God’s eyes, but through their own. Not through the Church’s values, but through earthly ones.

  As today’s Gospel makes so clear, the Church’s mission is spiritual, not earthly.

  Look (and I know I’ve said this before, but I think on my own blog, not here). When the Church speaks of “violence” done to children adopted to actively homosexual “parents,” She is not necessarily speaking of food deprivation or socks in the jaw.

  She’s talking about spiritual violence, which, hard as it may be for folks to take in, is so bleepin’ much worse!

  Acting out homosexual behavior is gravely sinful. Let’s accept that as a given for the sake of arguement, if nothing else.

  Now imagine a little girl brought up lovingly by a homosexual couple, fed well, given the best of education and everything else the world has to offer.

  What do you think will be her likely reaction when she is taught that homosexual behavior is sinful?

  What are the chances that she’ll accept this? Not so hot? Bingo.

  And so we have a child who grows up believing that what the Church has taught—what our fathers in faith have taught under Divine inspiration—is pure hooey. And who could blame her? After all, she’s been given a wonderful, earthly life by two people who practice what the Church says is just plain wrong.

  It’s not altogether unlikely that this child will be raised as “Catholic” or at least “Christian.” Why is that? Well for starters, the agency that placed her with these “parents” (no chance here of even pretending she was “born” to them) by a “Catholic” agency. And, like the cycle of physical child abuse, the cycle of spiritual child abuse continues on…with her children, perhaps (“no, darling, your teacher is wrong…what Grandpa and Gramps do isn’t wrong at all!”) or with her Sunday school class.

  it’s hard for me, at least, to appreciate what all the fuss is about nor understand why Meade should be regarded as a pariah.

  He’s not regarded as a “pariah.” Are you kidding? He’s regarded, as is his beliefs, as a saint! Were he a pariah, he’d been fired by Archbishop O’Malley a long time ago.

  At least not if one’s priority is on the best interests of the children involved.

  “Doing violence” to children is not in their best interests.

• How can children learn something as fundamental as the difference between right from wrong when they’re raised in a home whose parental relationship is based on immoral and unnatural behavior?

  Also, has anyone looked at the names of the 42 Board members at Catholic Charities who voted “unanimously” to continue the gay adoptions? 
  http://www.ccab.org/trustees.htm
  One of them is Bishop Richard Lennon.

• Abp O’Malley no doubt inherited a mess but he has refused by and large to confront dissent and treachery in the Archdiocese.  It needs to be confronted head on with no compromise and where appropriate firings and ecclesiastical penalties must be levied.

• Silent revolution.  He has done much that the public has not seen, some of which I assume is meant to be kept private.

• Sure certain things must be can be done in silence but when the dissent/treachery/heresy/ is open and public and is entrenched in an archdiocesan organization there has to be public response as well to counter it. These are also teaching moments.  Add to this a supposedly Catholic mayor in Boston who misstates Catholic teaching in a very public manner and a vicious, anti-Catholic, NY-Times-controlled Boston Globe.

• Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix came into a mess of a diocese too but he began doing very visible things to clean the place up.

• Thanks, Kelly, for helping me better understand your concerns. I see what you mean both about the issue of gay adoption having already been addressed by the hierarchy and the overarching concern for the spiritual welfare of the children involved. I suppose my main difference with you is my faith in a child’s ability to overcome the “spiritual violence” of being reared by gay adoptive parents more easily than overcoming the deprivations—physical and emotional—of being a ward of the foster care system.  In short, I believe that a child who was lovingly reared by a gay couple could nonethless learn and accept the teachings of the Church that homosexuality is wrong, no less than a child brought up by alcoholics can realize that substance abuse is a disease.

  Regarding Infanted’s comments, it’s my understanding that under the terms of its state contract, Catholic Charities does not deal only with Catholics seeking to adopt but takes applications from candidates without regard to their religious affiliations or beliefs. Thus, if a couple of atheists or agnostics, not to mention Protestants or Jews, Muslims or Hindus applied to adopt, Catholic Charities would process their applications without religious discrimination.

• I misstyped.  I just meant to say tell lay Catholics to adopt.

  Why does Archbishop Sean need to speak when George Weigel did it for him?

• …no less than a child brought up by alcoholics can realize that substance abuse is a disease.

  So if an alcoholic couple wants to adopt a child and give him a loving home would it be okay? Wouldn’t that be better than the foster care system? How about a couple who are white supremacists? Couldn’t the child grow up to accept that racism is wrong? The child can learn to overcome the deprivation, but why put him in it.

  The difference, Tony, is that our belief in the immorality of a homosexual lifestyle is not just a point of view. We believe that it is objectively true.

  Rather than sending children to live with the spiritual violence of such an upbringing to avoid a bad foster care system, maybe our efforts should be put into improving the foster care system, streamlining adoption, etc.

• “Why does Archbishop Sean need to speak when George Weigel did it for him?”

  Because Mr Weigel is not the leader of how many millions of Catholics in the Boston area…

• In short, I believe that a child who was lovingly reared by a gay couple could nonethless learn and accept the teachings of the Church that homosexuality is wrong, no less than a child brought up by alcoholics can realize that substance abuse is a disease.

  Apples and oranges, Tony.

  For one thing, in this society, homosexuality is not wrong. On the contrary, it’s glorified.

  The American Psychiatric Society doesn’t consider homosexuality a disorder at all. I haven’t looked it up, but I’m going to go on a limb here and opine that the group probably thinks alcholism is…not normal.

  You don’t see a TV show called “Sots for the Sober Eye,” do you? Of course not. Nor do I think you will you see a “National Smokers’ Pride Day” complete with parades, flags, and free butts.

  A child, in this society, in my firm opinion, has a pretty good idea all while growing up that her alchoholic, or abusive, or drug-addicted caretakers aren’t exactly primo when it comes to parenting. She doesn’t need the Church to tell her that when she comes of age.

  On the other hand, a child, in this society, given a “gentle” upbringing by homosexual “parents” will be—if not now, then very soon—in for a nasty shock (which may well result in disbelief and who can blame her?) when told that her loving “parents” are living a sinful lifestyle.

  Even if that doesn’t happen, why take the chance? Why buy into the glorification of a sinful lifestyle for—what?—a good education? Good health care? Great clothes? Good nutrition?

  And I’m not even getting into the common wisdom that foster care is always equivilent to evil. You might know some horror stories. So do I. I also know some great ones.

  That’s not the point. The point is, adopting a child to active homosexuals does a violence to the child.

  Regardless of what Rosie O’Donnell says.

• “Because Mr Weigel is not the leader of how many millions of Catholics in the Boston area…”  That doesn’t mean he can’t do the dirty works of apologeitcs.

• Abp. O’Malley is the shepard.  He needs to begin acting like one.  I want to believe that he is doing wonderful orthodox things behind the scenes but if I don’t see concrete actions (that others also see, i.e. the Board members of CC, for example) then he is not leading.  Rome has spoken on this.  He either will conform or he won’t.  Either way, it will speak volumes.

• Dom and Kelly, please let me clear that I respect the Church’s position on homosexuality—although it is not the view of my faith nor mine personally.  And, more to the point, I’m inclined to agree with the view that Catholic social service agencies should comport themselves in ways consistent with the Church’s teaching.  Moreover, my contacts with members of the staff and board of Catholic Charities in Boston inclines me to believe that, given their druthers, they would be happiest if they could always make choices that harmonize with all of the Church’s teachings. Thus, I have no doubt that if enough straight people, not to mention straight, observant Catholics, offered themselves as potential adoptive parents for these hard-to-place kicx, the issue of gay adoption would not be one that Catholic Charities would have to confront. So, the ideal solution would seem to me to recruit more conventional Catholic couples to adopt.

• So, the ideal solution would seem to me to recruit more conventional Catholic couples to adopt.

  We’re missing the point here, Tony.

  The solution is to follow Catholic teaching, i.e., we don’t send kids to be “parented” by “couples” who are living in sin. Period.

  Don’t put the blame on “conventional Catholics” (and who the bleep are they?) who haven’t, for reasons of their own, adopted children. (Although that would be a good idea, that’s NOT the point.)

  And please, don’t change the subject. The thing is this: (repeat, lather, and rinse if necessary)

  Adopting a child to a homosexual couple does violence to that child.

  How many times must this be said?

  Moreover, my contacts with members of the staff and board of Catholic Charities in Boston inclines me to believe that, given their druthers, they would be happiest if they could always make choices that harmonize with all of the Church’s teachings.

  They ARE “given their druthers.” And I, by the way, while wishing them much “happiness?” It’s not on my list of priorities.

  They are to follow Christ. Period.

  Sometimes Christ wasn’t “happy.”

  (Does anybody believe this conversation? Sheesh.)

• So I heard tonight from a priest in the know that the board did not really recommend to the archbishop unanimously.

• Tony,

  I’m not just disappointed that the Catholic Charities workers have formally cooperated with evil, a decision which profited some of them in a worldly sense by allowing them to keep their government business. 

  I’m disappointed that they didn’t choose to be shot by a firing squad rather than do so, because then they would have died as martyrs and gone straight to Heaven in triumph. 

  That is the standard for Catholic charity, Catholic faith and Catholic hope.  It is the standard set by Christ Himself.  We all have to pray that God will give us His grace to live up to that standard.

  Of course, the state didn’t have to explicitly resort to that level of coercion to achieve its homosexual imperative.  Why is that?

• I appreciate your disappointment. seamole.  The standards of Christ’s example are very exacting, and even people of good intention will fail them.  But I think you are in error in claiming that Catholic Charities profits in a worldly sense by enabling adoptions, the vast majority of which are by heterosexuals.  However, I will suggest that CC could have at least filed suit challenging the state requirement that agencies not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in arranging adoptions.  Such a suit might not have changed state policy, but it would have made clear that the policy is in conflict with the Catholic position.

• Tony,

  Are you suggesting that all of the work done by Catholic Charities to enable adoptions is performed by volunteers?  As far as a lawsuit goes, what if they lost?  Would they have complied with the court against Christ? 

  The problem isn’t simply one of “making clear…the Catholic position”.  We need the courage to get on the Cross, not only to avoid the damaging (and damning) charge of hypocrisy, but also because it can become an offering pleasing to God. 

  I’m not saying that I would have succeeded where they have failed.  I pray to receive the grace to succeed in those battles that God has given me, which seem insignificantly small in comparison to the ones facing Catholics in the public square.

• No, seamole, the work of Catholic Charities with respect to adoptions among other works is not done entirely by volunteers—though volunteers do contribute to the work and those who are paid receive much less than their skills could command elsewhere nor what their fortitude and service are truly worth. I hesitate to judge them by the standard which you would apply simply because I recognize that they fall much more closely than do I to the standard against which you would have us all be judged. I am thankful that these people have devoted themselves to service and know that in many cases their work is unimpeachable in every respect.  I accept that, in this instance, their work is open to question because it is in conflict with Catholic doctrine.  But I must continue to reject your claim that this trangression was or is in any way motivated by material gain or even by a desire to promote homosexuality.  Rather, I think that these social workers are acting in what they truly believe is in the best interests of the children they have been charged to serve. While I am quite willing to accept your contention that they are completely wrong in this judgment and may be doing spiritual violence to those they seek to help, I can not agree with you that their motive was to be handmaiden to the evil of homosexuality nor to sacrifice the interests of innocent children to promote a state-sponsored homosexual agenda.  Perhaps you have hard evidence to the contrary, but, in lieu of such, I think you are being more than a bit unfair in evaluating the actions of those whom you do not know and sitting, in what seems to me unChristian judgment of those whose choices you may not be in a position fully to understand.  (Which is not to say that if you had all the facts you might not come to the same conclusions, but that your condemnation might be less harsh and more charitable.)  I trust that you will recognize that nothing which I have said should be construe as an attempt to curtail your condemnation of the evil you see in homosexuality, but only a caution against an indiscriminate application of guilt by association.

• Tony,

  The decision they made to formally cooperate with evil profited them.  That’s the allegation, and you don’t deny it. 

  As far as motive goes, you’re the first one to talk about it.  You claim that they are motivated by their personal beliefs, which if true would be beliefs objectively inconsistent with Catholicism.  Well, OK, but then why would State law make any difference whatsoever? 

  And this gets back to my original problem, which is that they are not behaving like Catholics ought to behave, despite working under the public name “Catholic”, a name that even Catholics cannot attach to any undertaking without the consent of the Bishop. 

  Frankly, I’m not sure which is worse—assuming that an organ of the local Church has let non-Catholic employees decide what sets of morals it would use, or assuming that some lower-echelon Catholic social worker has succumbed to an understandable temptation like desiring to feed his family.  Out of piety, I’d rather believe the latter.

  Whatever the motive, by doing this while using the name Catholic Charities they are lying to the world about what it means to be Catholic and what Catholics mean by “charity”.  The answer to both questions is Christ.  If we are not manifesting Him in this world, then we are wasting our time, which is not our own time, but a gift from Him for which we will be held accountable.