DENVER, March 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an uncommonly clear and straightforward statement, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver has publicly voiced the problem with homosexual adoption. James H. Mauck, President of Catholic Charities Denver, has stated that, "It is apparent that there are some who wish to compel Catholic Charities to place children with couples whose life choices run contrary to the values and beliefs of Catholic Charities and many other non-profit child placing agencies. This demand is imprudent and wrong."
…Despite all the attention, Mauk is one of the few Catholic leaders in the United States who has stated explicitly the Catholic stand regarding homosexual adoption. He said, "Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver has consistently held the position that children deserve to be placed into homes centered around a wife and mother, and a husband and father. Human history has amply shown that children thrive best when they grow in such a family."
Mauk concluded, "Given that the two parent family is society’s standard, and is also fundamental to our Christian service identity, any change in our practice is unwarranted, especially since many married couples are already seeking adoption and the number of infant children available for adoption has sharply declined because of the drop in relinquishments and the rise in abortions."
Well that is certainly refreshing considering the statements made by Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco. Especially compared to a statement made by Jeffrey Kaneb the new Chairman of CC in Boston.
To be clear, the board’s action is not a protest against the church and its teachings, nor is it a protest against the state and its nondiscrimination laws and regulations. Throughout the process of discussion, the board maintained an unwavering commitment to the agency’s nondiscrimination pledge, as well as an unwavering commitment to the welfare and safety of the children entrusted to the agency.
Unwavering commitment? That is a laugh considering that they had previously placed children with homosexual couples. So their claim of safety doesn’t apply to what then-Cardinal Ratzinger termed as violence.
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
9 comments
I really don’t understand what all the screaming is about. There are community-specific adoption agancies all over the place. There’s one in Chicago that specializes in placing black children only with black families, and the mother of an old friend of mine volunteered at one that placed Jewish children with exclusively Jewish families. Apparently we’re the only ones who aren’t allowed to have a filter.
Brava, Elinor! You took the words out of my hands. Also, I have looked into adoption and found that I don’t make enough money or live in a stable enough environment (because I moved from apartment to apartment for a few years) to adopt a child from a couple secular agencies. I think it was prudent on the part of the agencies, but I suppose I should be protesting that the “poor” and “home-challenged” shouldn’t be discriminated against!
I think the issue was that Catholic Charities accepted government money.
If you take Caesar’s coin, you shouldn’t be surprised to be expected to follow Caesar’s rules.
Here’s the deal, folks. There are long lists of couples waiting for infants. There are alos long lists of older kids, siblings, or disabled children waiting for parents. These are the children that the gays can so easily say, “Well, nobody else wants them, why not let us give it a try?”
You Catholics need to step up and put your money where your mouth is and get on the short list for the “less desirable” children and show the world that God’s people are so generous and loving that they don’t need to settle for second-best single or gay parents.
Andrew, your ignorance is showing. Catholic Charities of Massachusetts was the group responsible for placing 80% of the hard to adopt children in Massachusetts.
You liberals are the ones who need to step up to the plate and let your rhetoric about it being “for the children” match the reality, instead of it being about the ideology.
I’m not a liberal and I think Andrew is right. Catholics need to step up to the plate like Mother Teresa and shame the world with its selfishness and greed.
I think we need to live out what the church teaches and put our money where our mouth (and time) is.
Isn’t the present discussion a bit of a red herring, though? One commenter made an observation about following Ceasar’s rules. As state’s legistlatures are beginning to take a look at this issue, the issue is not about who is willing to take the children, but about the State’s obligation to provide the best environment for these children to be raised in. As fair as the observation may be that Catholics are not living up to the Gospel value when it comes to sheltering the orphaned, it isn’t germane to the current debate. The same diversion tactic was used in the recent debate about allowing gays in the seminary. Opponents pointed to low vocations numbers and the willingness of many gay candidates to undertake what seems an unpopular endeavor. But sacrificing quality and values simply for the sake of quantity is a rubric of our consumeristic culture, and is not a basis for a system of societal ethics, much less Church ethics.
As one in the process of adoption, I can guarantee you that the homosexual “couples” are not adopting the “special needs” children either. So it is a fallacy to claim that these homosexuals are so wonderful for their committment to the unwanted children–they are applying for healthy infants just like anyone else looking to create a family by adoption.
The truth is that as an adoptive parent, I am NOT looking to save the world or even a child–I am looking to build a happy family. That is not selfish or rude–it is simply the fact, and is true of nearly all adoptions world-wide.
I’m adopting because I’m infertile. Gays are adopting because they are by definition infertile, but also because they want to be seen as “normal” by the rest of the population. That’s hardly the selfless moral path, if you ask me.
I grew up in Palo Alto, a suburb of San Francisco. We had relatives and family “friends” who were gay men and lesbians. In general these people did not know each other–they were each a part of our lives individually (as opposed to being a part of some organized group).
As a child I was repeatedly approached, groped, molested and raped by men. All of my sisters were molested by lesbian women. Every one of us finally left California (culminating two years ago with my parents–HOORAY!) As an adult I have had closer contact with homosexual men than any other straight men I know. I’ve learned to watch them for “danger signs,” and they abound. Mostly they come in the form of comments such as “Mmmm, delicious” with reference to a toddler on a playground, and offers “I can watch him for you anytime,” concerning my own son. My experience is that homosexual men categorically can not be trusted to have unchaperoned contact with boys. My experience strongly supports the BSA position (struck down in court) regarding homosexual adult leaders.
Many homosexual men consider sex with boys between 8 and 12 to be an ideal first sexual encounter (I was 8 the first time I was “played with” by an adult). NAMBLA, The North American Man/Boy Love Association, is dedicated to “fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults,” (in other words legalizing pedophilia!) I wouldn’t be so concerned if this problem were not ubiquitous within the gay community.
Moving on to lesbians, my personal experience with thousands of lesbians while attending UC Santa Cruz has convinced me that these women generally fall into two broad (and occassionally overlapping) categories: 1) injured women unable to form secure heterosexual relationships, and 2) aggressive women aspiring to dominate within all their relationships. I have personally seen women in the second category victimizing other women (as well as men) in social and even criminal ways. All FIVE of my sisters have been kissed, grabbed and sexually fondled by lesbians (all in the second category). Only two of my sisters had their first unwanted lesbian encounter with an adult woman after they turned 16–the other three were adolescents.
In the context of my own life, I have seen such a pervasive pattern of sexually abusive conduct directed toward children by homosexual men and lesbian women that I can’t in good conscience depart from the Catholic church’s opinion regarding homosexual adoption–and I’m not even Catholic! When I was a child homosexuality was classified as a mental and social dysfunction. It’s unfortunate that the homosexual community has gained enough political and professional power to get themselves reclassed. It’s downright criminal that they would ever be entrusted with the care and upbringing of children.
To those “healthy” homosexuals out there (if you actually exist) I’m sorry that one of the costs of your sexual preference and lifestyle decisions is that you can’t be a parent, but this is a natural consequence of who you are and the way you live. Another consequence is AIDS–to which I’ve lost relatives. On a final note, if the last man who raped me had delayed just 9 months I would be where he is now–in a cemetary, dead from AIDS!
No child deserves what I repeatedly endured (though I somehow thought I did since it kept happening). Of course all six of us were too confused and scared to tell mom and dad–or even each other until we were adults and the topic came up. Now we are outraged! Everyone reading this think carefully–that’s six-out-of-six children in one family molested by the friendly, caring homosexuals who their loving parents new and trusted and included in their lives! Hmmmm.
No one will ever convince me to trust a sexual deviant with a child–no matter how wonderful that sexual deviant may be in the other areas of his or her life. Children deeply need parents and adults in their lives who adhere to judeo-christian morality. Anything else is harmful to children.