I found this trackback to an angry and not terribly coherent response to my post about Catholic Charities pulling out of the adoption business. Someone named Aerik Knapp-Loomis didn't like that I require comment registration, so he posted his comment to his own blog and called me out for a "monumental moral failure" for my post. Why? Because adoption is a good thing. Well, no kidding. You'd think I had come out and applauded what Catholic Services did. Here is the sum total of what I said in terms of my reaction to their decision:
On the one hand, I think they are completely wrong in their position on gay adoption. On the other hand, I respect the fact that they chose to withdraw from acting as an official state agency rather than compromise their beliefs.
Based on that simple statement, he apparently thinks that I think adoption is bad or that gay adoption is bad and that I "applauded" what Catholic Services did. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think they are completely, totally, 100% wrong on the subject of adoption by gay couples or individuals. I am an enthusiastic advocate of gay adoption and have written a great deal against state laws that prohibit it over the last few years. I think such laws are totally indefensible and I think the Supreme Court was wrong to turn down the Florida case that could have overturned all of them.
All I said was that I respect their consistency in their beliefs. One of the big problems with church/state entanglement is that it tends to pollute both church and state. Religious groups that accept state money will find strings attached to it, and those strings won't always be for the better. I do respect a religious group that says they would rather give up the funding than change their views. That doesn't mean I agree with those views. In this case, I think their views are ridiculous and barbaric.
I fully agree with him that not allowing gay adoptions will doom many more kids to an unstable existence when they could have a loving family. But Catholic Charities arranges on average about 35 adoptions a year in Massachusetts and there are lots of other groups to pick up the slack, which I strongly hope they do. And I hope that other states follow the lead of Massachusetts and start not only allowing but promoting adoptions by gay couples and individuals. If this is a "monumental moral failure", give me an F. But I suspect that my correspondent is just jumping to false conclusions and engaging in vastly overblown rhetoric.
- Log in to post comments
Well, the thing is, the had already been taking state money, and they had already been placing children with gay parents. Additionally, as was pointed out in the Boston.com article, the Church refusing to do adoptions sure takes a lot of the wind out of their pronouncements against abortion.
So on the balance, I really can't see this move as "consistency in their beliefs."
Seriously off-topic, but yesterday (Monday) the Boston Globe, in its weekly Science & Health section, had a lengthy profile of Kenneth Miller. For those who may be interested, it's at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/03/13/catholic_scienti…
To the point of the post, on WGBH--Boston's public television station--last night, a guest on the program Greater Boston noted that there were some 9000 children currently awaiting adoption in MA. That's a figure that I find hard to believe, but, if it is anywhere close to reality, it strikes me that it is rather stupid of the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc) to wish to restrict the pool of possible adopters--as they are doing--by not considering potential gay adopters. Apparently, the RCCi is more interested in their ideological purity than it is in children.
One might seriously wonder why the RCCi hates children.
raj wrote:
I agree with that completely. It's not only stupid, it's morally bankrupt and harmful to children. I do not support their policy. I've just said that I have a certain measure of respect for the fact that they're willing to act consistently and give up government funding to stick to their principles (even if I find those principles heinous).
Gretchen-
The fact that they had already done it has nothing to do with my argument. Catholic Charities had done gay adoptions, but that is clearly inconsistent with Church doctrine. It's the morally correct decision, I'm sure we both agree, but it is inconsistent with their beliefs and the decision to stop is in line with Church doctrine.
My point was that I don't think they did it (quit the adoption business) in order to be consistent with their beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that they apparently had no problem being inconsistent with their beliefs before.
Gretchen-
There are two different groups involved here. The board of Catholic Charities wanted to continue facilitating gay adoptions; the Catholic Bishops overruled them. That overruling, however heinous it may be, is consistent with Catholic doctrine.