• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

May-26-2011
Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services
By Catholic News Service
LINK: CNS STORY: Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

ROCKFORD, Ill. (CNS) -- The Diocese of Rockford has announced that its Catholic Charities offices will no longer offer state-funded adoptions and foster-care services when the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act takes effect June 1.

Because the law did not include an exemption allowing religious organizations to refer adoptions or foster-care arrangements involving same-sex or unmarried cohabitating couples to other agencies, "the Diocese of Rockford is forced to permanently discontinue all state-funded adoption and foster-care operations as of June 1," said Penny Wiegert, diocesan director of communications, at a May 26 news conference.

During the debate over the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, the Catholic Conference of Illinois said the state's six Catholic dioceses provide about 20 percent of the adoption and foster-care services in Illinois and had facilitated the placement of about 3,700 abused and neglected children with loving families over the past 10 years.

There has been no word from the other five dioceses about whether they would continue state-funded adoption and foster-care services after June 1.

In Rockford, the shutdown will involve job loss for 58 Catholic Charities workers who were notified that morning. Catholic Charities in the Rockford Diocese had been handling approximately 350 foster family and adoption cases in northern Illinois with a state budget of $7.5 million.

"Our caseworkers do this work not just because it's their job but because it is their calling," said Frank Vonch, director of Catholic Charities administration in the diocese, at the news conference. "The families they serve are just an extension of their commitment to serve humanity, so it is a very grave loss for them as well as for everyone involved with charities."

Catholic Charities activities not funded by the state -- including private adoptions, school counseling, private family and marriage counseling, outreach and emergency services, immigration and refugee services and crisis pregnancy counseling -- will not be affected.

Wiegert noted that the Catholic Church "does not condone same-sex unions or unmarried cohabitation between individuals of the opposite sex."

"We believe in the natural order of marriage and the sacrament of matrimony between one man and one woman," she added. "We also believe and promote the optimal God-given privilege of every child to be reared in a safe and loving family with a committed and loving male father and female mother whenever possible."

Vonch said that although "leaving this work will be very painful for our client families, employees, volunteers, donors and prayerful supporters, we can no longer contract with the state of Illinois whose laws would force us to participate in activity offensive to the moral teachings of the church -- teachings which compel us to do this work in the first place."

Meanwhile, the state's six Catholic dioceses were working together to create a joint response to the law, said Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois.

He told the Catholic New World, Chicago's archdiocesan newspaper, that a recent conference call involving five of the six yielded what appeared to be a consensus to have their employment policies ensure that people who work for them understand they are working for the church, and are expected to conform to church teaching.

The state's Catholic health care facilities also were among the entities discussing how the law will affect them.

Catholic entities are discussing how the law will affect them.

The Illinois Catholic Health Association, which includes Catholic hospitals and other health care institutions, sent a memo to its members May 9 suggesting that they offer "employee plus one" benefit packages instead of "employee and spouse" benefit packages starting June 1.

Such a package would "provide any employee the opportunity to buy into a benefits package that would provide health coverage for themselves and one other person living with them. This person could be a sibling, relative, etc., the exact relationship would not need to be disclosed," wrote Patrick Cacchione, the health association's executive director, in the memo.

The memo was only a recommendation, he emphasized, and it would apply only to health care institutions, not to dioceses, Catholic Charities agencies or educational institutions.

- - -

Contributing to this story was Michelle Martin in Chicago.

END
 
Ah Catholics, fighting for the right to discriminate against whatever abritrary group their religion teaches them to hate. I wonder how long it will take for Catholic organisations like this to realise that its not a good thing to discriminate against people or at least that religious organisations aren't above the laws which apply to everyone else.

Probably a long time.
 
To object to something is not the same thing as "hate". Time to tone down the rhetoric.

A Catholic may say they object to gays rather than hating them but from the perspective of the homosexual who is being disciminated against against the distinction between hatred and objection is somewhat hazy because the outcome is the same.

Either way its still wrong to hate or object to someone on the basis of their sexuality, and even worse to expect that you be allowed to freely disciminate against them.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
this is a great example of how the religious think they are in a position to control those who do not adhere to religious doctrine...
it's a blatant act of moral superiority...
 
Ah Catholics, fighting for the right to discriminate against whatever abritrary group their religion teaches them to hate.......

I understand that you can't fathom our belief in tradtional values, or the concepts of right & wrong. We do not hate homosexuals - in fact the Catechism calls us to treat them with charity. But at the same time we cannot place children in dens of mortal sin.

But I know that people like you label everything they can't understansd as "hate". That is truly the sign of a vacant mind with no moral compass.

To object to something is not the same thing as "hate". Time to tone down the rhetoric.

Correct. Thanks.




 
this is a great example of how the religious think they are in a position to control those who do not adhere to religious doctrine...
it's a blatant act of moral superiority...

Wrong. It is an example of us not allowing ourselves being forced to deny our faith and our beliefs by a tyranical government. So we do not offer the services anymore. Sorry if that bugs you. You can go open your own service to take up the slack if you want. I doubt you will though.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I do have to wonder, how much of a "calling" it is to help these children when it becomes more important to keep them out of a possible loving and devoted family just because the couple isn't married or happens to be gay, than it is to get the children out of horrific abusive situations? If it is a "calling" to help the children, then religious objections or not, isn't a safe and loving home preferable to an abusive home, no matter what the dynamics of the safe and loving home may be? Truly benevolent people who cared enough to want to help would over-look their own opinions about a person's living situations or sexuality in order to save a child. When it comes down to it, isn't helping a child more important than "sticking to one's guns"?
 
I do have to wonder, how much of a "calling" it is to help these children when it becomes more important to keep them out of a possible loving and devoted family just because the couple isn't married or happens to be gay, than it is to get the children out of horrific abusive situations?.....

The premise of your question is false: Two gay people practising un-natural and sinful acts, and exposing a child to them, is not a "loving and devoted family", okay?

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

We believe that. If you do not believe it that is your affair. But we do, and it would be wrong to place a child in the midst of that.

So, if its okay with you, we will allow scripture and tradition to guide our beliefs, not Elton John and Ellen Degeneres!





 

Draka

Wonder Woman
The premise of your question is false: Two gay people practising un-natural and sinful acts, and exposing a child to them, is not a "loving and devoted family", okay?
That is opinion only and the facts of the matter disagree with it.

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

We believe that. If you do not believe it that is your affair. But we do, and it would be wrong to place a child in the midst of that.

So, if its okay with you, we will allow scripture and tradition to guide our beliefs, not Elton John and Ellen Degeneres!

I really don't know what Elton and Ellen have to do with this conversation. My point is simply this: personal religious beliefs should not hamper helping save a child from abuse. If a person's "calling" is to help save a child, then a safe home is better than a dangerous home and it shouldn't matter who is in the safe home, as long as they are safe. If a person's "calling" is to help, then personal religious beliefs would not cloud that desire. If the "calling" is conditional, then it is not truly a "calling".
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
Wrong. It is an example of us not allowing ourselves being forced to deny our faith and our beliefs by a tyranical government. So we do not offer the services anymore. Sorry if that bugs you. You can go open your own service to take up the slack if you want. I doubt you will though.

so freedom is tyrannical :confused:
 
.....My point is simply this: personal religious beliefs should not hamper helping save a child from abuse......

It was a Church run adoption service, a private service. We DO have the right to our religious beliefs, right? Are we now FORCED to provide services in a manner that violates our faith, services usually provided by the state? That is quite a 180 from the usual "seperation of church and state" gobbldeygook people are usually screaming.

It is the same with abortion. Abortion may be legal, but Catholic hospitals will not provide them.

Your view of child abuse is one thing. Our view of child abuse would include placing a child in a situation where moratl sin is the norm. We cannot place a child in an evil situation if the reason is just to remove him from another evil situation.
 
so freedom is tyrannical :confused:

Noooo, its tyranical for the government to force private organizations to do things that violate their religious beliefs.

Look, what's your beef anyway: All of a sudden you crave the Catholic Church to provide you with services? On any other day you probably would complain about the Catholic Church and Her services. But now it sure is convenient to flip-flop, ain't it.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Noooo, its tyranical for the government to force private organizations to do things that violate their religious beliefs.

Look, what's your beef anyway: All of a sudden you crave the Catholic Church to provide you with services? On any other day you probably would complain about the Catholic Church and Her services. But now it sure is convenient to flip-flop, ain't it.

ok...fine. let the adoptions cease and while we're at it lets just make sure they get the worse education and health care and make sure their lives are really worth living
good job...:areyoucra
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
It was a Church run adoption service, a private service. We DO have the right to our religious beliefs, right? Are we now FORCED to provide services in a manner that violates our faith, services usually provided by the state? That is quite a 180 from the usual "seperation of church and state" gobbldeygook people are usually screaming.

It is the same with abortion. Abortion may be legal, but Catholic hospitals will not provide them.

Your view of child abuse is one thing. Our view of child abuse would include placing a child in a situation where moratl sin is the norm. We cannot place a child in an evil situation if the reason is just to remove him from another evil situation.

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I'm just saying that if it was really important to them to really help then they would, regardless of unmarried couples and same sex couples. I just personally think it says something. That the stance against same sex couples and unmarried couples is more important than saving children. If that's the stance that church/charity is taking, then so be it. I just happen to think it is a sad one. Thankfully the government is not so discriminatory and can continue to help children and place them with good families regardless of the marital and sexual orientation status of the parents.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
ok...fine. let the adoptions cease and while we're at it lets just make sure they get the worse education and health care and make sure their lives are really worth living
good job...:areyoucra

State and federal governments are already pros at this. They don't need anyone's help - and considering the low standards in most states, Roman Catholic institutions should be a dramatic improvement.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I'm not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I'm just saying that if it was really important to them to really help then they would, regardless of unmarried couples and same sex couples. I just personally think it says something. That the stance against same sex couples and unmarried couples is more important than saving children. If that's the stance that church/charity is taking, then so be it. I just happen to think it is a sad one. Thankfully the government is not so discriminatory and can continue to help children and place them with good families regardless of the marital and sexual orientation status of the parents.

Yeah, that's what really makes them look like the big bad wolf.

But do we really want Roman Catholic ministries in charge of adoptions, particularly considering (1) religion in general and (2) the pervasion of the child sex scandals.

This could simply be an excuse for Roman Catholics to bow out of a program that they can no longer sustain.
 
I'm not saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I'm just saying that if it was really important to them to really help then they would, regardless of unmarried couples and same sex couples. I just personally think it says something. That the stance against same sex couples and unmarried couples is more important than saving children. If that's the stance that church/charity is taking, then so be it. I just happen to think it is a sad one. Thankfully the government is not so discriminatory and can continue to help children and place them with good families regardless of the marital and sexual orientation status of the parents.

Well, there is another piece to the puzzle that might not be stated in the article. Several times, exemptions for faith-based oprganization, which are usually granted in such matter, were repeatdly denied by the Democrat led legislature in in this issue. If they had just granted the exemptions that are usually granted in these and similar situations, we'd still be in business. But the liberal zealots in the State House had to go for broke and place us between a rock and a hard place. So, you can thank the Leftys and their intransigence for what happened.
 
Top