Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gem said:MissileMan Wrote:
So basically, you would rather have an agency that placed the most difficult to place children in loving, supportive homes closed forever than simply allow them to apply for a religious exemption?
Come on, Missleman, you can not honestly believe this. How can it be better to leave children in need without help simply to prove a point?
When are we going to grow the f*ck up, admit that the world isn't black and white, and do what really is best, even if it ruffles a few feathers.
The Catholic Charities should be able to continue to do their good work - even if it upsets gays and their supporters. As the law permits in Massachussettes, gay couples should be able to adopt from adoption agencies that either a) have decided to support them or b) are run by the state or receive money from the state.
What would have been wrong with that compromise? Its common freaking sense. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face, you don't stop an agency that does wonderful work for children in need to pacify an incredibly small number of people who can get the exact same services elsewhere.
I'm sorry, I'm ranting now...but sweet jesus, to quote a great movie - Doesn't anyone else see it? I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS!
GotZoom said:Careful.
He has connections.
MissileMan said:Yeah, yeah...AOL, Nevada Bell...terrifying! :fifty:
Gem said:Missileman,
Yep, its a shame that the gay activists were so excited to screech "hypocrite!" at the nasty meanies who wouldn't let them adopt children as frequently as they wanted had to go and make it a national issue, which in turn, forced the church's hand.
It is obvious that when backed into a corner, as the church was in this situation, it was going to have to side with the Catholic principles. This is yet another example of people so offended at the idea that they couldn't have their way that they ruined something that didn't need fixing. The Boy Scouts, the county seal of Los Angeles, etc. etc. etc.
I just hope that the gay lobby is thrilled with this outcome...rather than going to the other adoption agencies in Boston, they deliberately forced this one into having to close.
Yippee...lets celebrate. A big friggin victory for equality and human rights.
MissileMan said:Your take on the situation is a tad different than what I've read. The legislation that prohibits adoption agencies from discriminating based on sexual orientation is almost a decade old. Catholic Charities of Boston had been operating within those guidelines and had even allowed 13 same-sex-household adoptions. Everything was going smoothly until the Globe ran a story outing the adoption agency. The bishops were forced to reconsider their compliance by the Vatican and the bishops decided to appeal for a waiver which they did not receive.
After reading the comments that follow the piece I was reminded of why I remain at arms length with the Catholic Church. What do you get when you mix two hot potato issues, Politics and Religion? The Catholic Church of course.Last December it came to light that the Boston office of Catholic Charities had been following the state policies, and had arrange the adoption of at least 13 children by homosexual couples during the past decade. The board of Catholic Charities has reportedly voted overwhelmingly to continue promoting same-sex adoptions, despite the bishops' opposition. On March 1 seven directors of the agency, including former board chairman Peter Meade, resigned their posts, announcing that the bishops' effort to end the same-sex adoptions 'threatens the very essence of our Christian mission."
MissileMan said:
MissileMan said:Yeah, yeah...AOL, Nevada Bell...terrifying! :fifty:
GotZoom said:And don't forget the Viet Cong beer and the rowboat.
He's ready for the invasion.
Gem said:And why exactly do you think the Globe was so eager to run such a story? Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that it was the spirit of openness and honesty that led the editors to the decision and rather it was done because catching the Catholic Church in yet another hypocrisy would be so deliciously fun in a city like Boston - which has had so much horror with the Catholic church in the recent past AND has a very strong gay lobby.
This was, distrubingly, almost a "win-win" for the paper. "Out" this organization, and win friends from the liberals who hate Catholicism AND from the gay activists! Have we truly become such a depraved society, that our desire to "out" people we don't like would override any logical inclination to let the organization continue to do a good thing - especially when it was doing the right thing below the radar of a too-wide-reaching law that should have allowed for religious exemptions?
You'll find me making very few excuses for the Catholic church's hierarchy. I find the way they handled the pedophilia crisis evil. That's right. Evil. I find the way they treat women upsetting and my issues with Catholicism do not end there.
I do, however, recognize that the vast majority of priests were not involved in the scandal...and that the organization in question, for all of its faults, was doing good work.
Again - I feel that this has to do more with our society being so eager to point the finger and those we don't like and screaming "HA HA HA you are hypocritical!!!" than stepping back and saying "Wow, I dislike you and what you stand for...but sometimes - my feelings aren't the most important thing in the world."
There isn't any 'rest' of your statement. The first part rested on the second, which you just said was in error.archangel said:I stand corrected on the public money issue..I was not aware that they were receiving money from federal,state and county resources...however the rest of my statement stands!
Kathianne said:There isn't any 'rest' of your statement. The first part rested on the second, which you just said was in error.
They would be in violation of the law, which they acknowledge thanks to the Globe, as Gem said. The state is NOT going to grant an exception, so it's done. Don't be surprised though, to see the Church ready to give up tax free status, but selling off/closing hospitals, schools, etc. The burden has become greater than the investment.archangel said:Wrong they still have the right based on the 38% donated monies...if they gave up the 62% public money they would have every right..albeit on a smaller scale!
Kathianne said:They would be in violation of the law, which they acknowledge thanks to the Globe, as Gem said. The state is NOT going to grant an exception, so it's done. Don't be surprised though, to see the Church ready to give up tax free status, but selling off/closing hospitals, schools, etc. The burden has become greater than the investment.
Arch, I know about it, but thanks for the pointer.archangel said:see scotus ACLU vs Boy Scouts of America...I do believe this settled the law issue...and you are probably right about the church not proceeding with this any further...I will not argue this assertion!
