posted
From the perspective of Catholics who adhere to what the Church teaches on this issue, I agree that they really don't have a choice to discontinue adoptions in contexts where they are going to be forced to service same sex couple adoptions.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The city is the one who is changing the terms of the contract. This is their fault.
I wasn't getting into fault with my post. Just addressing that Catholic Charities is removing charity from people based in a way on who they are.
If we want to talk fault, as I said above, I don't think that they had any choice on the adoption issue. I don't know if fault is really the correct word for the clashing of priorities in that case though. The district's priority of treating it's citizens equally and providing the best adoptive circumstances for the children is coming into conflict with the members of the church's adherence to its teachings. I think, in that case, given their differing perspectives and goals, they are both acting as they must. Neither has all that much of a choice unless it is to stop being what they are.
But Catholic Charities had plenty of choice in canceling the whole range of other activities that they were performing and could continue to perform without any violation of church teachings. I don't think you can realistically say that it is not their fault there.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The city is the one who is changing the terms of the contract. This is their fault.
While technically true from one perspective, saying, "This is their fault," sends a pretty specific message: they did something wrong, and the resulting conflict is because of them.
That's simply not true. It takes two to tango, katharina. You can say that the Catholic Charities cannot violate their beliefs in the style the city is asking them to, but the truth is, they could if they wanted to. But, well, they've decided what's important to them here. You can also say that the city could go against its beliefs, and continue endorsing however indirectly discrimination against homosexual couples, and that's also true. But like the Catholic charities in this case, they've also decided which belief is more important.
Each side could, if they desired, ignore or change some pretty fundamental aspects of their goals/beliefs/ideals/whatever. Obviously, though, that's not going to happen without a really compelling reason, and someone else saying, "But you're asking us to do that!" simply doesn't cut it. For either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be more sympathetic if they were attempting some sort of stop-gap measure while other groups are found to cover the services they will no longer provide.
They are giving fair warning - to give the city time to find someone else.
They are attempting to do more than that, but it does serve as fair warning, yes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, Of course there is a choice. Teachings can and do change. And what "the Church" considers official teaching is not necessarily what the Church considers official teaching. (See: birth control) Catholic Charities in Boston was providing adoptions for gay couples until the bishop stepped in.
I am sure this one will change.
ETA: I am not sure how providing benefits for same-sex partners of their employees or not discriminating when it comes to hiring is as clear cut a violation of Catholic teaching as allowing SS couples to adopt would be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the district changed how adoption has to be handled by people contracting with them to better match the district's priorities. Catholic Charities then decided to cancel their services based on their priorities. Neither of them, as I've said, should have acted differently considering their perspectives, but the district's decision is an indirect cause, whereas the Catholic Charities' response is the direct cause of these services getting withdrawn. What's your point?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The church made an agreement with a public institution knowing full well that an issue like this could arise. Fault is not important, and it's a non-issue here. Both parties, most especially the city, should learn not to make such agreements in the future. The church doesn't have a rule saying they can't be involved in politics, but the city does have rules saying it can't get involved with the policies of the church. So, I think the church (being composed of citizens of the state) should for its own sake act in the interest of the separation of church and state, and decline such offers. The city, likewise, should never make them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that if you change the terms of the contract knowing full well that the terms will unacceptable to the other party, you can't cry foul when the other party chooses not to renew the contract under the new terms.
If the other party's participation is so important, don't change the terms. If you do change the terms, say goodbye to the other party.
Either way, the city is changing the contract, which sets off everything else.
If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, I qualified my initial statements to try to make it clear that I was assuming that they agreed with the teachings of the church that say that gay adoption is gravely immoral.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
This sounds like you think religious freedom entails not being thought poorly of. If so, I pretty strongly disagree.
I also don't agree that a government should compromise or be held at fault when their endeavors to provide equitable treatment to their population brings them in conflict with the prejudices of people who they've contracted services with.
edit:
I imagine that during the Civil Rights era, there were cities who ran into similar problems with organizations who balked at now having to provide services to black people (or hey, how about adoption to mixed race couples). I don't see that the cities' enforcing the new more equal status of black people causing them to lose these groups' support could be said to be the cities' fault.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: boots, I qualified my initial statements to try to make it clear that I was assuming that they agreed with the teachings of the church that say that gay adoption is gravely immoral.
Yes. I want to make the point that the "official" Church (the Vatican, some bishops) does have a choice about that particular teaching and that the Church (Catholic people in general including priests and bishops) have a choice as to whether they believe that teaching.
I have little patience for "have no choice in the matter". If they agree, they are choosing to agree.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more complex for that for Catholics outside the hierarchy (actually for people under others in the hierarchy it can be difficult too, because they can, in many cases, be ordered to obey on this). It's not just a matter of agreeing with this specific teaching or not, but rather buying into the church as their primary source of moral and religious direction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From the perspective of Catholics who adhere to what the Church teaches on this issue, I agree that they really don't have a choice to discontinue adoptions in contexts where they are going to be forced to service same sex couple adoptions.
Vile, okay. That's a qualitative judgment that you have every right to make.
Misinformed, though? What in that document shows evidence of misinformation, Squicky? (Maybe section 7...? I dunno. There are a lot of terms there that could have a subjective meaning.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think it's more complex for that for Catholics outside the hierarchy (actually for people under others in the hierarchy it can be difficult too, because they can, in many cases, be ordered to obey on this). It's not just a matter of agreeing with this specific teaching or not, but rather buying into the church as their primary source of moral and religious direction.
It is complicated and I am not saying it is easy - at all. They (we) still have that choice.
ETA: And lots of Catholics make those choices. Easy majorities of American Catholics make that choice when it comes to divorce and birth control. Majorities still on celibacy of priests and the ordination of women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
The research shows the opposite: that children raised by same sex couples do not suffer worse physical of psychological health than those raised by opposite sex couples. It also shows that children raised by same sex couples fare better than children raised in a succession of foster homes or orphanages, which is the likely result for some kids of them not getting adopted by same sex couples.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If "fault" is too loaded for you, find another term.
Well, yes, that's one route. Another would be choosing less loaded but equally accurate terminology yourself, thus communicating more accurately.
quote:Regardless of what you call it, the city is the one changing the terms.
Why does that matter to one side or the other, exactly? It would only matter if it were an 'artificial' changing of the mind, that is, one party or the other was looking to screw over the other and thus changed their position to force a conflict.
That's not what happened here.
quote:The point is that if you change the terms of the contract knowing full well that the terms will unacceptable to the other party, you can't cry foul when the other party chooses not to renew the contract under the new terms.
Now, this seems pretty fair to me. However, I think it ought to be made clear also that if the terms of the contract, that is a contract that's not supposed to last forever or something, become unacceptable to the first party, I don't see why it's unreasonable for that party to say, "We're changing the conditions."
quote:If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
Is anyone suggesting the CC should be forced to remain in this agreement? Is anyone seriously suggesting any course of action other than criticizing the CC for its course of action? If not, 'religious freedom' has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion one way or another.
-----
Mr. Squicky,
quote:...but the district's decision is an indirect cause, whereas the Catholic Charities' response is the direct cause of these services getting withdrawn.
This is also technically accurate, but somewhat misleading. However you think about the CC's stance on this issue, it cannot possibly have been a surprise to anyone, can it? So who 'directly causes' something like this? Party A who says to Party B, "We're changing this," or Party B who replies, "Since the this in question has always been fundamentally against our beliefs, we'll no longer deal with you on this issue."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Scott, The document states that:
quote:As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
The research shows the opposite: that children raised by same sex couples do not suffer worse physical of psychological health than those raised by opposite sex couples. It also shows that children raised by same sex couples fare better than children raised in a succession of foster homes or orphanages, which is the likely result for some kids of them not getting adopted by same sex couples.
They may not be using the term "full human development" the way you're using it. See my statement earlier about subjective terminology.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, It's not really an important point, but Party B directly causes it. Party A directly causes the change of the contract, which influences the change effected by B, to withdraw services. To say that they are the direct cause is to say that they, themselves, effected the removal of services, which is not the case. To say that they are the direct cause is, in this situation, is to say that party B is not the direct cause.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I get it. It's technically accurate, no doubt there. The CC is the direct cause if we're being completely literal. It's just that the real facts of the situation are more complicated is all. Just clarifying, not suggesting you were saying otherwise. Problem with language and all that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, By referencing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, they're implicitly talking about the terminology use there, although I guess you could make the case that the are just trying to draw a dishonest equivalence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so, Squicky. They are saying that the UN declaration is correct as it promotes the child's welfare over the the desires of potential parents; prior to that, they are saying that the child needs dual gendered authority figures in the home in order to develop "fully."
They are not saying that their definition of "full human development" coincides with the UN's; I don't think that's a logical conclusion at all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I get what you were saying. I was using a very literal way of putting it in response to the way kat was framing it.
I'm kinda curious, would you see CC withdrawing the services not related to adoption as similarly complicated?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If people would like the public to believe that gay marriage existing is not going to mean the end of religious freedom, you shouldn't cry foul here.
Again, Kat, a lot of people here are crying foul at *the city.* Including me. A lot of other people are, with perfect justification, crying foul at the church's policy. That is not inappropriate, you simply disagree.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I see the document as pretty clearly implying that there are including physical and mental development in that. Would you agree that, if they are in fact doing so, it is misinformed?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why this is such an argument. The Catholic Church has every right to do what it is doing, the people who are critical have every right to be critical. What's to argue?
I'm sure the Bishop was smart enough to be aware that he was going to receive criticism for his decision, even if he was apparently not wise enough to remember that Jesus, when confronted with individuals, typically helped people first and gave them moral instruction later.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Sorry for being so obtuse. It's a way to make sure we understand one another, and are not distracted by forum history)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm kinda curious, would you see CC withdrawing the services not related to adoption as similarly complicated?
The thing is, I don't really think it's complicated at all, even though I think some simple terms (direct cause, fault, etc.) can be inaccurate. But no, I don't think my opinions would change at all if the specific hot-button issue changed, if the motivations were still the same.
That is, if the CC's reason for opting out of the deal were based on purely religious motivations like this*, or if the city's reason for changing the deal in the first place were for anything other than purely secular reasons, then my opinion might change.
*Because outside of religion, there simply isn't any compelling, provable justification for discriminating against same-sex couples in this fashion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been my experience that life's major disputes are not about good vs evil or Vice VS Virtue.
Its almost always Virtue VS Virtue.
So we have the case here: We have the politicians who see Equality as a virtue to be pursued versus the Catholic Church who see's Obedience to God as a virtue that can not be challenged.
If the politicians assume that the goal of the Church is Inequality for Inequality's sake, they close the door on compromise and discussion. If the Church sees the politicians stance as their desire to be disobedient to God, then there can be no middle ground and we drift off into the realms of continuous blame.
Blame only accomplishes one thing. It frees you from having to do anything about the problem. You can blame the church or you can blame the city and its easy. Its their fault so they need to fix it or suffer the consequences.
Meanwhile those people who have relied on Catholic Services are the ones suffering.
Katharina, my comment earlier was not the most researched and perhaps not the wisest said, but what I wanted to point out in general is still unresolved.
There are those who believe that all social services, from Adoption to feeding the hungry should be the work of churches and volunteer private organizations. Yet some of what needs to be done goes against their beliefs.
We would have two choices in this Libertarian world, either leave the choice in the hands of the churches and their hopeful good will, or force the churches to go against their beliefs. Neither is acceptable.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: They are also vile and misinformed.
Vile, okay. That's a qualitative judgment that you have every right to make.
Misinformed, though? What in that document shows evidence of misinformation, Squicky? (Maybe section 7...? I dunno. There are a lot of terms there that could have a subjective meaning.) [/QB]
They are misinformed in claiming divine inspiration. Note that this position is not dependent on atheism; a theist who is not a Catholic may also reasonably hold that the particular teachings in question are teachings of men, not of gods.
[ November 20, 2009, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most American Catholics think that the teachings on divorce and birth control and female ordination and clerical celibacy are incorrect. What makes the teaching on homosexuality different?
American Catholics are pretty much right in the mainstream on "morals" issues. They are more likely than non-Catholics to approve of same-sex relationships. Even 44% of "committed"* Catholics are okay with homosexuality.
I am not alone. ;D Stop pretending I am some bizarre outlier.
*Defined by how often they attend Mass.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said you were either an outlier, or bizarre. Indeed, the bizarre thing is to believe things which put you at a social disadvantage; that's what calls for signalling and game-theoretical explanations. But I stand by calling you a non-Christian.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along with what percentage of American Catholics? You gonna excommunicate most of us?
ETA: SO don't use me as an example. The poll numbers show that plenty of other Catholics prove my statement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, why not? Let them show some backbone for a change. The bishop's right. Either you believe you have divine inspiration, or you change your cloak with every passing social fad. You, now, would be really admirably suited for the vicarship of Bray.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
