Conflicting Consciences
It would be hard to read the Catholic press these days and not notice the press toward conscience protection for Catholic organizations. I realize that much of the pressure is political, not philosophical. Nonetheless, I am still puzzling about the underlying philosophical justifications for conscience protections–and how they operate. In particular, for example, I am not sure what the difference between “conscience’ and “discrimination” is. Consider two cases.
1. A Catholic adoption agency does not want to place children with same sex or unmarried couples because of its underlying belief that such living situations will harm children by communicating the mistaken moral judgment that same sex relations or unmarried sexual relations are not always immoral. It asks for conscience protection–the freedom to place children in accordance with its conscientious moral judgments about sexual morality.
2. A secular humanist adoption agency does not want to place children with conservative Catholic couples because of its underlying belief that such living situations will harm children by communicating the mistaken moral judgment that same sex relations or unmarried sexual relations ARE always immoral. It asks for conscience protection–the freedom to place children in accordance with its conscientious moral judgment.
In each case, those who disagree with the agency’s underlying policy are going to charge “discrimination.” Secular humanists are going to say that the Catholic agency in case 1 is discriminating against those with more liberal sexual morality, while Catholics are going to say that the secular humanists in case 2 are discriminating against Catholics.
Is there any way to differentiate between “conscience protection” and “discrimination” without taking a stand on the underlying substantive moral issue? And if not, how will the secular law be able to protect one rather than the other?
Two questions, Cathleen.
1. Suppose both agencies were exclusively supported by private funds and accepted children for adoption from parents who subscribed to their policies. Would such discrimination be legal under current U. S. law or under any currently proposed public policy?
2. Is there any relevant legal practice in any part of Europe that would be relevant to the question you pose? If so, how have Catholic bishops in Europe responded?
No difference, if you believe there is nothing about mainstream religion deserving of a special place in our society. I understand that’s probably how you feel. Fair enough. As soon as either there are enough citizens who feel as you do or the Supreme Court gets there first, it will all change. Hang in there.
Cathleen – these are great questions, and I’m hoping that someone who knows the answer (definitely not me!) weighs in.
Regarding your two examples: from a legal/constitutional point of view, I assume someone could mount the argument that religions are given some constitutional space to operate in a way that secular humanists are not. (I don’t know if that’s a good argument, but I can imagine it being made). Are religions constitutionally peculiar in this respect?
Even if the constitutional argument is a good argument, I can’t, off the top of my head, construct a justification for it that doesn’t require reference either to divine revelation (as interpreted by certain religions such as the Catholic church) or to the particular history of the American experience. In other words, I don’t have at the ready an objective and universally applicable principle that distinguishes adequately between your two cases.
Cathleen, this is not precisely the question you’ve raised, so I apologize if it is a digression. Regarding your two adoption examples in particular: I believe that, at one time, a nbirth mother could “give up” the baby directly to an adoption agency she chose. Thus a mother could entrust the baby to the St. Vincent de Paul Society (which at one time was an adoption agency in Chicago), who would most likely apply Catholic teaching in making its adoption decisions (and may well have favored Catholic adoptive parents); other mothers could entrust their babies to other agencies who, while perhaps not secular humanist, might have favored good parents from certain Protestant denominations over Catholic parents (Discrimination? Or conscience protection?)
In this old process, the birth mother, although relinquishing legal control over her child, was, by the choice of adoption agency, exercising certain choices for her child – by going to St. Vincent de Paul as an agency, she was favoring the possibility that her child would end up with a good Catholic family.
Nowadays, I think the process is different? I believe the state ‘funnels’ children to accredited agencies?
The question is, should the birth mother have some say in how her child is raised? By choosing St. Vincent de Paul, the birth mother was influencing whatever conscience or discriminatory policies would be applied to her child. In the modern model, the state controls the criteria for adoption agencies, which is why Catholic Charities is no longer doing adoptions in some states. Which party – the birth mother? the state? the agency? the adoptive parents? – get to set the terms of the adoption?
Birth mothers can still discriminate on whatever basis they choose. So a birth mother can tell an adoption agency that she only wants her baby to go to married heterosexual couples living in rural locations with access to horseback riding facilities.
Adoption agencies can’t, however, refuse to approve potential adoptive parents on such criteria. They are limited to applying nondiscriminatory, neutral state imposed criteria regarding fitness for parental duty. Where a Catholic agency does not want to follow the state’s criteria, but wishes to apply its own additional screening criteria, it runs afoul of state law, possibly including state constitutions. Where a secular organization wants to discriminate against people on the basis of religion, it faces the same objections.
What makes them different is that under the federal Constitution, the state’s willingness to go along with Catholic orthodoxy in the selection of parents probably violates the establishment clause, whereas, the state’s willingness to go along with the secular organization’s refusal to approval Catholics probably violates the free exercise clause. The two are in constant tension as soon as religion and state experience any kind of fusion.
We are not talking here about the placement of babies — which is almost always the perogative of a birth mother — but the placement of foster children whose parents’ rights have been terminated, which is almost always a function of state authority (state terminates rights and automatically assumes parens patriae responsibility for children) — and the approval of parents as suitable for adopting either the former or the latter.
Thus, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that by imposing additional “Catholic” or “secular humanist” criteria over and above what is permitted by state law, these private organizations are assuming a right that does not belong to them under state law, and in doing so, raises serious issues of federal constitutional rights under both the establishment and free exercise clause. As delegates of the state they can be no more discriminatory than the state, and a state can choose not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and can never discriminate on the basis of religious point of view.
How many Catholics would like the Vatican to recognize their right to follow their conscience. Irony of ironies.
Barbara, how, up to now, have Catholic adoption agencies differed in what they do from non-Catholic agencies? Why is it important to the Church that there be Catholic agencies? For that matter, why is it important to the Church that there be Catholic hospitals? Presumably, if there were no Catholic adoption agencies and hospitals, someone else would take up the slack – the work would still be done. Catholic schools, it seems, may also have outlived their usefulness, since they’re just barely Catholic now, after the disappearance of religious in administrative and teaching positions and what I assume are serious government limitations on what can and can’t be taught.
Maybe the evaporation of religious to fill teaching and administrative jobs has happened just when government has begun to make social-service organizations with a strongly religious character all but impossible. Interesting how these things dovetail.
What is the real issue here? I suspect that it is a desire on the part of certain bigoted persons to reduce the influence of religions in the U. S. by cutting down the activities of religious groups in the U. S. Yes, there is concern for the hurt feelings of the couple, but that isn’t all at play here.
Consider: If I give each of my nephews $5. as a present , but I don’t give you, my niece, anything, does that constitute legal discrimination? Of course not — for the simple reason that I don’t *owe* you $5, and giving the boys $5 each doesn’t create an obligation to treat you alike. My motive in not-giving-you-$5 whether it is a religious belief or just plain meanness is totally irrelevant. The only question is: do I owe it to you?
So let’s broaden the topic: does a charitable institution have the right to discriminate whom it shall give benefits to? If, for instance, the Rockefeller Foundation decides to fund an educational program in Alabama, is it thereby legally required to fund a similar program in Georgia and Missisippi? Of course not — the RF is an eleemosynary institution.
Now let’s get specific again: does the fact that Catholic Charities offers adoption services to *some* couples thereby establish an obligation to offer *everyone* those services? Of course not– it too is a charitable organization.
And it doesn’t matter what Catholic Charities’ motives are or aren’t. So the question of conscience is totally irrelevant.
Regarding:
“Now let’s get specific again: does the fact that Catholic Charities offers adoption services to *some* couples thereby establish an obligation to offer *everyone* those services? Of course not– it too is a charitable organization.”
As Barbara pointed out, the issue is not offering adoption services to couples to place their own children but to provide services for which CC is paid by the state to place children who are wards of the state. As a recent court decided, CC has no inherent right to be hired by the state to do this.
Catholic Charities probably could run an adoption service to place only children still under their parents’ control and using whatever selection standards it wished – as long as it did not accept any state funding to do it.
Regarding:
“why is it important to the Church that there be Catholic hospitals?”
The archdiocese of Boston sold all 6 catholic hospitals to a for-profit company. The agreement is that they will continue to follow Catholic standards but that the buyer can terminate that obligation by paying an additional $25 million ($20 million?) to the archdiocese.
Personally, I prefer having a Catholic hospital at available to me, but that may be a historical moment that is passing.
“The agreement is that they will continue to follow Catholic standards but that the buyer can terminate that obligation by paying an additional $25 million ($20 million?) to the archdiocese.”
Isn’t anything sacred any more? Or are they pulling our leg?
I, too, prefer a Catholic hospital, but I’m very dubious about the Catholicity of “Catholic” hospitals today. As you say, their day may have passed – along with the day of Catholic schools and many other social-service organizations. So long as they accept government money, they’re bound by government rules, which effectively make them much the same as all other social-service organizations. The Church, fractured by schism, severe financial losses, and the decimation of its community of religious, may do well to start restructuring to make the most of its scarcer resources.
FYI, Mark Silk has a fine examination of many of these issues here:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2011/10/separation_of_church_and_self.html
“As Barbara pointed out, the issue is not offering adoption services to couples to place their own children but to provide services for which CC is paid by the state to place children who are wards of the state. As a recent court decided, CC has no inherent right to be hired by the state to do this.”
John H. –
Granted. However, just because Cathy has no *right* to $5 from her aunt, that does not of itself preclude the possibility that her aunt might at some time give such a present. Just because CC has no right to place those children, that of itself does not *preclude* it’s placing them. (And this might be said of the couples involved — they have no right to any particular child, or even any right to any of the available children.)
Both the people at CC and the couples are acting as they see fit for the best interest of some children. I see no reason why the CC should be prevented from doing some good too.
The question is, given the interest of the *child* as the first consideration: is the CC competent to decide which of the available parents will be the best for the child? Surely, in many cases CC would be. If the state sent children of Catholic parents, or children who already been baptized to Catholic Charities for placement, the child would be served just as well by CC as it would be by another competent social services agency.
Further, it would be in the public interest to have CC handle some of the placements because it would save the state money — CC no doubt costs less to operate than a government agency and so helps take some of the financial strain from the whole state social services system.,
@Bill Mazzella
This is from the archdiocese’s newspaper
“The recently-signed agreement between the archdiocese and Steward provides that the Archbishop of Boston will oversee that the Caritas hospitals run in accordance with the bishops’ directives. The agreement allows the archbishop to have final authority in disputes involving the directives.
The agreement also allows the hospital to maintain its existing ethics committees, and allows the archdiocese to hire its own medical ethicist. Additionally, the hospitals can still provide chapels, employ chaplains, and display Catholic imagery.
“This is a substantive and structural commitment by the archdiocese and Steward to operate this hospital system by the religious and moral directives of the Catholic Church,” said Father J. Bryan Hehir.
The agreement may be terminated by the archdiocese if it finds the hospitals are not being run according to Catholic practices. However, the archdiocese must provide 90 days notice for Steward to correct the problem.
Conversely, Steward would also be allowed to opt out of the contract if complying with the bishops’ directives is found to be “mutually burdensome.” Murphy said that clause was inserted into the deal in case future medical advances hampered efforts to comply with Catholic directives. ”
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=11801
Thanks. I didn’t read the whole Kaminer piece – lawyertalk makes me cataleptic, and I’m driving – but I get the idea. What it boils down to is that whatever the government decides is the law is the law. You can argue your case till you’re blue in the face and it won’t make a speck of difference – they have the cops and you’ve got to obey. Any time you take on the government in court (or anywhere else) you’re just begging them for mercy – you have very little leverage and zero power. If they don’t like you, you’re toast.
I’d think that every Catholic school teacher and parish employee is rooting for Perich to prevail in the dispute referred to by Silk and Kaminer (the link to Kaminer’s description of the dispute is contained in the Silk piece at the link David G provided).
Barbara, thanks for clarifying the adoption and foster-care issues.
“The question is, given the interest of the *child* as the first consideration: is the CC competent to decide which of the available parents will be the best for the child? Surely, in many cases CC would be. If the state sent children of Catholic parents, or children who already been baptized to Catholic Charities for placement, the child would be served just as well by CC as it would be by another competent social services agency.
“Further, it would be in the public interest to have CC handle some of the placements because it would save the state money — CC no doubt costs less to operate than a government agency and so helps take some of the financial strain from the whole state social services system.”
Hi, Ann, I agree with both points you make here. However, I believe that, in at least some of the instances of Catholic Charities exiting the adoption business, the state had contracted out its own responsibility to Catholic Charities, probably for exactly the reasons you cite: Catholic Charities is reputable, competent, experienced, and can do it less expensively than the state can do it. But I’d expect that, by accepting the contractor relationship, that Catholic Charities operation essentially *is* the state – it is doing the state’s business on the state’s behalf. And so it is bound by whatever laws and regulations apply to the state itself.
Perhaps the remedy is, not for the courts to carve out exceptions for Catholic Charities, but to use political processes to change the laws and regulations that the state applies to Catholic Charities. But that sounds a lot harder, riskier, more time-consuming and expensive.
David Smith, I think that Catholic adoption agencies hearken back to an earlier period in adoption practice — when there many more adoptable infants given up “voluntarily” by birth mothers rather than through termination of parental rights. In those days, it was extremely common for mothers to go to whatever agency was the closest match to their own demographic characteristics, and couples with similar characteristics would use the agency as well, so the “matching” was de facto if not exactly mandatory.
I note that it would still be appropriate for a birth mother to choose a “placement agency” to find potential parents with specific characteristics — but that isn’t in practice what is happening. Agencies now work primarily on behalf of the state to vet couples or individuals who are seeking to adopt — whether from voluntary or involuntary terminations. Their work is paid for by the state and the state requires any adoptive parent to undertake the investigation provided by the agency.
So it’s important to separate out the independent pieces: who chooses adoptive parents — when it’s mother voluntarily terminating her rights, she can choose any suitable adoptive parent. When it’s the state involuntarily terminating rights, it has to adhere to state nondiscrimination principles.
Then, who vets adoptive parents — again, the state requires the vetting, and it has to be done on a nondiscriminatory basis. This is the piece of it that Catholic agencies want a waiver from — they don’t want to have to “approve for placement” any gay couple, even when they are acting pursuant to a contract with the state that pays them to do the vetting that the state requires.
Barbara, that traditional role of placing infants given up “voluntarily” by birth mothers is pretty much the only service Catholic Charities describes on its adoption website:*
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=1666
That role of supporting pregnant women and those unable to care for children seems like a traditional and important thing for the church to be doing.
Perhaps the solution is to continue that program even if CC drops out of the business of being a contractor to the state to handle foster care and adoption placements for children who are wards of the state and who must be placed based on state rather than church criteria.
Has CC continued to provide private placements in the places where it has dropped out of the public programs?
*the link to “Foster Care Adoption” doesn’t work.
Ann, CC NEVER chooses where a particular baby is going to be placed. A mother might choose to rely on CC to make a determination, but when the state places children the state has to do the choosing, at some level — that’s where the state would get into trouble if it simply allowed an organization, and I stress ANY ORGANIZATION, to apply its own criteria. What CC was doing in IL and MA, where it left the adoption service business, was to investigate the suitability for parents awaiting placement BY THE STATE of foster children. They might also have been doing home studies for parents using private agencies, which can, like CC could, work directly with birth mothers voluntarily placing children with parents of their own choosing. In either case, they are serving as an arm of the state and they are therefore going to be bounded by state law principles.
The things you identified as potential goods are not unqualifiedly so. “Saving money” could never be used as an excuse for rank discrimination, for instance.
“When it’s the state involuntarily terminating rights, it has to adhere to state nondiscrimination principles.”
Barbara –
Thanks very much for all the clarification, but I’m still a bit confused. I understand that the state choses on a non-discriminatory basis when the terminations are involuntary. However, even when the mother is being deprived of the child, I don’t see why the mother should lose her right to choose the religion — or non-religion — of the adoptive parents with whom the state will place the child.
Also, when the mother gives up a child voluntarily, does the state ever pay for it? If it does, can the mother chose which religion the adoptive parents will have?
I agree that if the placements are unfair the money should not be a factor in the decision. But in the absence of positive injustice, money can become relevant.
In sum, given a mother who is being forced to give up her child, I just don’t see why she cannot direct the state, ‘OK, you’re taking my child, but give it to a Catholic/Methodist/atheist/whatever adoptive parent’. In other words, I don’t see why that choice has to be refused her. In such cases an adoption agency would be acting as the agent of the mother, not the state, at least in making that one decision during the adoption process. True, the state would assign the child, but the mother would make the choice prior to the final assignment, and the adoption agency would would be acting as an agent of the mother during the vetting process.
I understand now that this is not what *does* happen, but I think it’s unfair to the mother and the child. I have an adopted godson, and people like him typically want to know about their biological parents and their ethnic heritage, and many want to have been brought up in a similar culture. They feel less alienated that way. (Unfortunately, some feel alienated no matter what.)
‘OK, you’re taking my child, but give it to a Catholic/Methodist/atheist/whatever adoptive parent’. In other words, I don’t see why that choice has to be refused her.
Ann,
What if the mother specifies Haitian Vodou? And if the mother has a say, why doesn’t the father?
Also, placement is supposed to be done in the best interests of the child. What if the mother was a Catholic, and the adoption agency must choose between an iffy Catholic couple and a solid Episcopalian couple? How many people of the “wrong religion” is the state supposed to turn down waiting for the “right religion”? What if it is impossible to place the child at all with a couple of the preferred religion? What if a lesbian couple of the preferred religion is competing with a heterosexual married couple of a different religion? What makes you think that mothers who give up babies or have them taken away from them necessarily make such good decisions that they may put conditions on how the state places the children? Why is religion the one and only choice the mother gets to make for the child?
Ann, I assume it varies by state, but in Massachusetts parents who voluntarily surrender a child to the state for adoption can specify that the adoptive parents be of a specific religion.
The law says:
“Section 5B. In making orders for adoption, the judge shall consider the need of the child for loving and responsible parental care and all factors relevant to the physical, mental and moral health of the child.
If, at the time of surrender of the child for adoptive custody, the parent or parents of said child requested a religious designation for the child, the court may grant a petition for adoption of the child only to a person or persons of the religious designation so requested, unless a placement for adoptive custody based on such request would not have been in the best interests of the child. If a request for religious designation is not given effect, such reasons in support of such determination shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings.”
How that would apply to a same-sex couple both of whom self-identify as Catholics.
Sorry, the last sentence should have read:
I don’t know that the question has ever been raised as to how that would apply to a same-sex couple, both of whom self-identify as Catholics.
The law is at
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter210/Section5B
I don’t think there are that many people (married, single) waiting in line to adopt children. That is why foster care is so overwhelmed with children. And the older they become, the harder to adopt.
Catholic couples can certainly sign up to legally adopt children from state agencies.
David N. –
Why not Haitian Voodoo? I’m quite sure the neo-atheists feel the same way about Christianity.
I don’t know why the father has no say. Possibly because so often the reason she is giving it up is because he won’t support it? Or because she is the one who risked her life with the pregnancy?I don’t know what relief a father might have if he were willing to assume some responsibility. I”m suspect he has a *right* to have the child as its sole parent if she is giving it away.
What if when your child was born there were a pair of Episcopalian saints living down the block — should they have a claim on your child? Should your child have a right to say, ‘Bye, Dad and Mom’.
If the mother were allowed to choose, there would be no issue about whom the state might or might not choose.
I’m sure that there are cases now of voluntarily giving up the child in which there are no adoptive parents of the chosen religion available. I assume the same principles used with them could be used in other cases.
If a gay person is competing to be the adoptive parent, then perhaps the mother should have some say so in those decisions — for many it would be an issue of freedom of religion.
What makes you thinks all mothers or even most single mothers who give up their children for adoption would probably make bad decisions about placement? If a women takes the trouble to *have* the baby that speaks well for her. In fact, your question seems to have a rather sexist assumption.
Maybe religion should not be the only choice the mother can make, if there is a large enough pool of possible adoptive parents.
John H. –
I understand that in voluntary cases the mother/parents can specify religion. The problm is with involuntary cases — apparently the parent(s) have no right to name religion in those cases (or do I have that all wrong?) However, note that in involuntary cases the parent is *resisting* giving up the child. It seems to me that those cases the assumption should normally be that the mother *wants* the child and, if she can’t have it, she would want the child to have her faith if she values it highly.
Ann, again I suppose it varies by state, but here’s a case in Massachusetts in which, even though the mother’s rights had been terminated, the state evaluated 5 Catholic or Christian homes before placing her daughter with a Jewish family.
“In any event, the judge did consider the mother’s religious preference for Brooke’s placement and made findings as to the potential Christian homes that the department had considered for Brooke. The judge found that prior to placing Brooke in her current Jewish pre-adoptive home, the department attempted to accommodate the mother’s religious preference regarding Brooke by considering five Catholic or Christian households, some of whom it deemed inappropriate for Brooke and some of whom withdrew from consideration.”
http://masscases.com/cases/app/42/42massappct680.html
What makes you thinks all mothers or even most single mothers who give up their children for adoption would probably make bad decisions about placement? If a women takes the trouble to *have* the baby that speaks well for her.
Ann,
That is really quite a distortion of what I wrote. I asked, “What makes you think that mothers who give up babies or have them taken away from them necessarily make such good decisions that they may put conditions on how the state places the children?” First, it’s a question. Second, I didn’t say anyone made bad decisions. I asked what makes you think these women necessarily make such good decisions that they could put conditions on the state’s placement decisions.
In fact, your question seems to have a rather sexist assumption.
This is unfair. We are talking about (1) women who choose private adoption and determine where the baby can be placed versus (2) women who give up their children (or have them taken away). Both groups are women. How could it be sexist to raise questions about group 2? What distinguishes them from group 1 is that they give up their children or have them taken away, not that they are women. If I say some women are more competent than others, is that sexist?
Mary Margaret Flynn has already nailed the response I was going to make. A terminated parent’s specification of the the preferred characteristics of a permanent home is more like a cruel joke than anything else. The reality is, their children will be lucky to find any permanent home, and the older the child the more true that is. That is one reason some states are impatient with efforts to prevent classes of people (single, gay) from fostering or adopting children. In too many places, the alternative isn’t a single or gay man or woman versus a married straight couple, it’s a single or gay many or woman versus nobody at all.
Ann, the other thing to understand about involuntary terminations is that they occur in most instances only after elaborate efforts to address the underlying conditions that led to the disruption of the family in the first place — whether it is neglect, physical or sexual abuse, drug abuse, and so on. Not all terminations are resisted to the bitter end, and in most cases the state would love to match children demographically with like foster or adoptive parents — not simply to give the biological parent her due, but to meet the best interests of the child, which are more likely to be served if he or she is not totally severed from his or her pre-existing cultural heritage. But that would be in a perfect world and the world for foster children is far from perfect.
What Barbara said( in spades)!
“What makes you think that mothers who give up babies or have them taken away from them necessarily make such good decisions that they may put conditions on how the state places the children?’
David N. –
This is your original question. Note: I was discussing the cases only of mothers who *resist* having to give up their babies, not those who do so voluntarily.
My reaction to your question was: why in the world are you questioning the judgment of such women when they want the child to have the religion of its parent(s)? That is certainly not an unreasonable concern. There is no reason to think even from the surface of the circumstances that they would not want the best placements for their child including the matter of religion, at least in many, many cases. So why do you question them? I can see no reason to do so except some sort of prejudice against them.
I didn’t say that they would necessarily make the best decision — obviously the state has reason to take their children away. What I said was that if they had to give the babies up they’d probably want the best placements for them, including in many cases the mothers’ religion.
I certainly think that mothers who *resist* giving up their children are doing so because they want what they, at least, think is best for them. So their judgment about *that* is wrong, but the fact remains that they have resisted giving up the babies, which certainly shows great if misguided concern for them. So the reasonable assumption is that most such mothers are intending the best, including the best placement if it has to come to that. And the best to them includes their own religion.
Why would you even question their judgment about choosing the best placements?
Barbara –
Again, thanks for all the factual information. I didn’t realize that even babies were hard to place these days. Given that many people go overseas at great expense to get a child, I thought it was because there are more hopeful adoptive parents than babies. It certainly throws a different light on the problems.
My grandmother was a social worker with Children’s Bureau, and I’m sure that the typical social worker will indeed have the best interests of the child at heart.
From a Gay Catholic perspective I find this conversation quite troubling. Part of me wants to be angry, another part of me feels frustration, and yet another part of me wants to challenge. I will do none of that.
The current issue of “Conscience” from my perspective a red hearing. In Illinois the recently passed Civil Unions Legislation is the state law. Someone here used the term vendor to discribe Catholic Charities relationship to the state and I think that observation is correct. If you take state money which Catholic Charities did you like all other vendors dealing with the state have to comply with the law.
What ever happened to the other pillars of the Truth in the Church “Sense of the Faithful” and “Theologians?”
Recently I lost my lover of 33 years to Cancer. I brought him home from the hospital so he could die wth me in our bed, and in familiar surroundings in a hospice program. We have two dogs and cat and he loved them so much. I tell you this only show you we are not so different than you.
Many years ago we wanted to adopt, but in order to adopt we were told we could not live together. I thought that was a different time, but now I am not so sure.
God bless
Peoria has given up CC’s foster care involving many youth to a yet to be formed agency.
This may play in Peorria, but I’m far from sure that the good of children is really what comes first.
Sounds as if the same caseworkers will be doing the same things for the same children and parents but will now work for a community agency rather than Catholic Charities. It’s interesting that the bishop hasn’t suggested that there is anything wrong with a catholic caseworker being involved in placing a child with a same-sex couple as long as the agency isn’t associated with the church. The arguments about the wrongness of placing a child with a same sex couple have disappeared leaving the impression that the main issue is that the institutional church not appear to endorse same-sex marriage.
“To prevent disruption to the 1,000 foster care children and families now served by Catholic Charities of Peoria, plans call for those state-funded contracts to be transferred by Feb. 1, 2012, to a newly formed nonprofit entity called the Center for Youth and Family Solutions. The Diocese of Peoria and its Catholic Charities will have no connection to the new entity.”
“The foster care contracts total about $15 million and affect more than 200 Catholic Charities employees, who are invited to transfer with the contracts to the new, independent Center for Youth and Family Solutions. It will be overseen by a five-person community board.”
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/peoria-catholic-charities-withdraws-state-social-service