What Catholic Charities should have said

What Catholic Charities should have said

Noticing the same deficiencies in Catholic Charities Boston’s statement that it was ending all adoptions rather than comply with a state law mandating they allow gays to adopt, Kelly Clark offers what she thinks would have been a much better public statement

Here’s the thing, folks.

Let’s get the recent reports out of the way first. Yes, Catholic teaching — as was recently and clearly stated by the Vatican — tells us that placing children in the care of same-sex “couples” is wrong, gravely wrong, plain and simple.

But you know what? We, you and I, don’t need Catholic teaching to tell us this. All we need is what God already gave us…a conscience.

You know it as well as we do…homosexual activity is wrong. Plain and simple.

Homosexual “marriage” is not only wrong, plain and simple…it’s absurd. It doesn’t exist. And if your mama or papa or lawmakers or courts are too timid to tell you this, we’re not.

Got that?


You know what else is wrong? Sure you do. Killing babies in the womb is wrong. Artificially preventing babies the right to life is wrong. Got that?


Go to her blog to read the whole thing.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

  • Everyone quoted in the Globe keeps saying “this is terrible for the children.” I agree, but who’s to blame? The state, and the state alone. Why don’t these people start raising hell and demand the state respect our religious liberty, rather than telling the Church how “unfortunate” its decision is?

  • Maybe the ending of adoptions is only one of very many steps in restructuring Catholic Charities to fit the Church’s Doctrine. It might be a long process, but it will be for the better. Prayers and offers of charitable suggestions to Carndial-designate O’Malley to handle this.

  • Dom’s point is that homosexuality is opposed to natural law, not a law revealed in the Old or New Covenant and binding only the members of those covenants.

    Catholic Charities raise money in the name of the Catholic Church but after they have the money, they have every excuse in the book to avoid acting in accord with Catholic teaching when they so choose, because they answer to another authority—their own will.

  • Maybe if Catholic Charities cleans up its act it could go back to placing Catholic Adoptions for Catholic Families to Catholic Families.  Possibly a violation of the unconstitutional law but a much more solid religious grounds. protecting Catholics from having their babies given up to possibly homosexuals.

  • One doesn’t have to wonder what would have happened if Catholilc Charities, refusing government money, remained the independent CATHOLIC entity they were before they sold out to Caeser.  They wouldn’t be enabling sodomites by allowing them access to innocent children.

  • As my posting of February 17 attests, I would have preferred that Catholic Charities just calmly go about its business, quietly neglecting to place children with same-sex couples, until someone else made an issue of this and tried to put them out of business.  In that case more of the public odium would have fallen where it belongs—on those to whom it is more important that the Church not be allowed to act according to its beliefs than that further hundreds of needy children be placed in fine and loving normal families.  A week after the posting, it is clear that the Church in Boston has chosen the option of making Catholic Charities withdraw from its long- established work as an adoption agency. In this way it does indeed avoid doing evil, and may still, in some way which is not yet clear, continue doing the good which mediating adoptions has allowed it to do for the last 103 years to children needing homes. As has been pointed out, the reason the Church got into this work in the first place was to see to it that Catholic orphans would be placed with Catholic families and be brought up in the faith. In other words, it was aimed primarily at insuring the spiritual welfare of the children it placed and only secondarily at their material security, which could have been provided for equally well by other agencies. This historical background should certainly be kept in mind in any consideration of the appropriateness of the Archdiocese’s decision in the face of a choice imposed upon it by an unyeilding civil regime. This decision is indeed “sad,” as people have been saying, but it was also inevitable, as people have not been saying.

    Further exploration of these notions can be read at my newly-initiated weekly blog: http://theolderemite.blogspot.com/

  • Finish the statement.

    Not only is homosexual adoption and abortion wrong, but selling CC is also wrong, so we quit doing that, as of now.

    And if that means we are out of business as a provider, then so be it. 

    This is to inform the state of MA that you have lost.  Yes, your scheme is crumbling before your very eyes.  We don’t have to toe your line.  We are Catholics and we believe in life. 


  • My husband and I have eight children, some by birth, some by adoption. After having adopted two children and been approved to adopt a third, we were waiting for a child to be found for us and were praying to St. Joseph and St. Raphael to help bring our new child home. In the meantime, a young woman who was pregnant saw us at church and asked through a third party whether we would take her child. Maybe there are other ways of achieving truly Catholic adoptions!

  • Can you point to a single peer-reviewed academic study that shows that homosexuality is genetic? And if it was, so what? Some scientists say that alcoholism or sociopathy are influenced by genetics. Does that mean we should let alcoholics and sociopaths be what they are just because their genes make them that way?

    And if there’s one lesson to take from the experience of the past five years, it’s that just because a priest says something, it doesn’t mean it’s right. The essence of being Catholic is to follow the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would prevent the Church from teaching error. Yes, the Bible is open to interpretation, which is why we rely on the Church—guided as she is by the Holy Spirit—to explain it for us.

    By the way, who are you that you claim to know me? Thanks for thinking I was a great kid, but I’m still the same person. I just grew up.