Don't tell ME it isn't a deviancy! . . . Catholics only, please.

[Benedicta00]

It depends on what our alternatives are.

If the two gay people gave them a safe haven from physical harm and neglect I understand what you mean, and so does the Church but slice it any way you want, placing them there has a whole nother side of 'harm.' Plus, it's a home life the Church condemns because it's mortal sin.

What I want you to do is recognize the Church's beliefs and allow her, her religious freedom to run her adoption agencies according to her religious beliefs.

 

[Benedicta00]

I've haven't used the term to mean only physical violence.

Then you can understand that there is a huge difference of opinions here. Being raised in a gay home is not THE optimal situation for a kid, no matter how loving, nice and wonderful the gay people are to the kid.

What would be the absolute best we can give a kid can not be found in a gay home period. The Church doesn’t see gay homes as an option, end of story.

You think then the kids in a worse off place is being denied, but this world sucks don’t it? We can’t use evil to try to fight the evil; we can not use evil to render good.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If the two gay people gave them a safe haven from physical harm and neglect I understand what you mean, and so does the Church but slice it any way you want, placing them there has a whole nother side of 'harm.' Plus, it's a home life the Church condemns because it's mortal sin.

What I want you to do is recognize the Church's beliefs and allow her, her religious freedom to run her adoption agencies according to her religious beliefs.

Running an adoption agency is not a right.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Then you can understand that there is a huge difference of opinions here. Being raised in a gay home is not THE optimal situation for a kid, no matter how loving, nice and wonderful the gay people are to the kid.

What would be the absolute best we can give a kid can not be found in a gay home period. The Church doesn’t see gay homes as an option, end of story.

You think then the kids in a worse off place is being denied, but this world sucks don’t it? We can’t use evil to try to fight the evil; we can not use evil to render good.

The problem with this can't fight evil with evil thing is that it clearly does great evil in extreme situations. For example, if our only options were give the child to a gay couple to raise or let the child starve, it would have us let the child starve.

 

[Benedicta00]

The problem with this can't fight evil with evil thing is that it clearly does great evil in extreme situations. For example, if our only options were give the child to a gay couple to raise or let the child starve, it would have us let the child starve.

No, the Church would just feed the child. This is a strawman indeed.

You seem to think putting them in a immoral- disordered, psychologically confusing home environment with lots of hugs and food to eat, and clothes to wear, etc is somehow a lesser evil.

Not all of us see it like that. We think it can screw the kid up just as bad as neglectful homes can.

 

[Benedicta00]

Running an adoption agency is not a right.

It's not- it's a charitable, humane service done for a child not for an adult. The Church is protecting the kids, there for the kids. They aren’t there to grant the gay adults their dreams of being a mommy when they're a man or their dream of being a daddy when they're a female or sharing mommyhood or daddyhood straight down the line.

It's not about an adult at all- gay or not. It's about the kids. Gay ppl need to go feed their egos somewhere else and stop using these kids to make them feel like their lifestyles are a normal part of society.

 

[Debi1967]

Of course the Church has a legal right to hold whatever stance it chooses.

Running an adoption agency is not a right.

First these two quotes contradict one another ......

Second to the last statement you made, yes it is a right, because not any old person can just run an adoption agency anymore, only those that are certified to do so. Therefore they have been given the RIGHT, either by the state government or the Federal government.

Thirdly and most importantly, I read your answer to me last night to my original question and since then have been bothered by it. You seem to believe, or the way that it is appering is that this whole thread is about man's law, the governmental laws. That you do not believe that the Church has the right to determine something higher above them.

When we are discussing that of God's laws, natural and Doctrinally, as handed down to us in the Bible then our final Authority in not the government but the Church and Her instituted Authority, by Christ.

When we become so consumed with things like that of how man sees things instead of how God sees things, then we are the cause of the problem not the solution IMHO. There is only one solution and that is God's way, and for a Catholic, trust in what the Lord gave to the Church. The inalienable right to make these decisions for us when the need is present. Not that we listen to men but that we should then be guided to listen to God and to submit to HIM always.

Now you have already admitted that the Church has a right to Her Freedom of religion and to express that. The furthering of argument on this discussion then is moot. The Church is not going to change Her position simply because you do not like it and because it does not sit well with the government. They do not answer to men but to God.

 

[Debi1967]

I do have a suspicion that people here are taking a more extreme position than the Church has actually taken. I don't see how a homosexual couple adopting a child does violence to the child becomes a homosexual couple adopting a child does violence so extreme that no situation could be worse.

5. The family, since it is a society in its own original right, has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents.

Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will. (6)

8. Many pressures are brought to bear upon the men of our day, to the point where the danger arises lest they lose the possibility of acting on their own judgment. On the other hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience.

He acknowledged the power of government and its rights, when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesar: but He gave clear warning that the higher rights of God are to be kept inviolate: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21).
As the Master, so too the Apostles recognized legitimate civil authority. "For there is no power except from God," the Apostle teaches, and thereafter commands: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities.... He who resists authority resists God's ordinance" (Romans 13:1-5).(29) At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out against governing powers which set themselves in opposition to the holy will of God: "It is necessary to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).(30) This is the way along which the martyrs and other faithful have walked through all ages and over all the earth.

13. Among the things that concern the good of the Church and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things therefore that are always and everywhere to be kept secure and defended against all injury-this certainly is preeminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires.(31) This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Your answer lies here as to why the Church would find that it is "violence" to the child in Dignatus Humanea...

It covers the Religious liberies of all throughout the world. Not just here and it it covers the most of all the Supremacy of the God and the Church before any manmade power.

May the God and Father of all grant that the human family, through careful observance of the principle of religious freedom in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unending and "glorious freedom of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:21).

Our Religious Freedoms are not something that the Church takes lightly, and believes that all of us should stand up for.... by defying the Church in Her position on this we are standing up for Her on this, we are betraying Her.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

First these two quotes contradict one another ......

No they don't. The Church has the right to take whatever stance it sees fit. However, there is no right to be an adoption agency if you can't follow state guidelines.

Second to the last statement you made, yes it is a right, because not any old person can just run an adoption agency anymore, only those that are certified to do so. Therefore they have been given the RIGHT, either by the state government or the Federal government.

Certification is one of the requirements for getting the priveledge of running an adoption agency.

Thirdly and most importantly, I read your answer to me last night to my original question and since then have been bothered by it. You seem to believe, or the way that it is appering is that this whole thread is about man's law, the governmental laws. That you do not believe that the Church has the right to determine something higher above them.

Again, it has the right to take a stance. It does not have the right to force the state to modify its requirements if the Church does not agree with them.

Let's consider an example. Say you applied to work for an adoption agency. You are qualified for the position and have all the required certifications. Before they hire you they explain their policies, which includes allowing homosexuals to adopt. You inform them that you would refuse to take part in such an adoption. They would be in their rights to not hire you because you would refuse to adhere to their policies. The situation between Catholic Charities and Massachusetts is no different.

 

[Debi1967]

No they don't. The Church has the right to take whatever stance it sees fit. However, there is no right to be an adoption agency if you can't follow state guidelines.



Certification is one of the requirements for getting the priveledge of running an adoption agency.



Again, it has the right to take a stance. It does not have the right to force the state to modify its requirements if the Church does not agree with them.

Let's consider an example. Say you applied to work for an adoption agency. You are qualified for the position and have all the required certifications. Before they hire you they explain their policies, which includes allowing homosexuals to adopt. You inform them that you would refuse to take part in such an adoption. They would be in their rights to not hire you because you would refuse to adhere to their policies. The situation between Catholic Charities and Massachusetts is no different.

I guess you did not read this then ....

YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS BECAUSE YOU HAVE PUT THE GOVERNMENT OF MAN ABOVE THAT OF GOD

13. Among the things that concern the good of the Church and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things therefore that are always and everywhere to be kept secure and defended against all injury-this certainly is preeminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires.(31) This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.

 

[Debi1967]

I want to ask you a question in all seriousness fragment and it is not I repeat not to question whether you are Christian or not, but if you disagree with the Church so much, and not just on this on many other issues that are Doctrinal and Dogmatic which require our assent then why are you Catholic?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I want to ask you a question in all seriousness fragment and it is not I repeat not to question whether you are Christian or not, but if you disagree with the Church so much, and not just on this on many other issues that are Doctrinal and Dogmatic which require our assent then why are you Catholic?

I probably see history differently than you do.

 

[Debi1967]

I probably see history differently than you do.

You see what differently than I do, that you can dissent when our teachings directly state we have to assent? This is not about HISTORY, this is about Doctrine and Dogma! IOWs I am going to ask a question that should have been asked of you a long time ago, you are a Catholic that is NOT IN LINE WITH HOLY SEE OF ROME? BTW, that requires a yes or no answer and no hedging of the answer.

The reason for this question so that everyone may know, including you, is because the only way you could say that to me is to not recognize the Authority, Given by Christ, to the Church to the Seat of Peter through Apostolic Succession, to have the Right to be able to make the decisions that you continually call into question.

Again, it has the right to take a stance. It does not have the right to force the state to modify its requirements if the Church does not agree with them.

I looked back and I wanted to further address this.
First our constititution says that Church and State are supposed to be separated and that neither are supposed to impose on the other, that is what our forefathers wrote into it, yet state governments and the federal government has overriden this on several occasions now saying that morally it is in the best interests of the people. Usually when this happens it is because one side is lobbying enough to overrule another and does not have anything to do with what is actually in the best interests of the people. All it has to do with is getting voters. Last campaign since Bush wanted the Catholics he put forth more stricter and loftier thoughts that were more along the lines of Catholics whereas the Catholic that was running looked horrible in comparison. This gets voters, it is political strategy.

Therefore we seem to be at odds here because you see something one way and I see that the Church herself has been trampled on effectively by the government. Again, man wants to run the show instead of letting God run the show so therefore they have taken away something that should be a fundamental right. I as a Catholic should not be told that I can practice my religion here and help in this capacity freely but not in this capacity freely simply because to some they find it morallistically wrong, I find them wrong, so touche.... Out of all of the couples that Catholic Charities in Mass., adopted out only four children went to gay couples we are not talking about a significant number here. And that is over the whole lifetime that they have been doing adoptions.

So essentially, the state government, was not judicious at all, because instead of looking at the stats and seeing their success rate which was extremely high, and seeing the good that they were doing the community they simply shut them down because they did not like the fact that they would not take gay couples into consideration in the future anymore. So tell me this government of men that you put so highly over the will of God, is it really that effective?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

You see what differently than I do, that you can dissent when our teachings directly state we have to assent? This is not about HISTORY, this is about Doctrine and Dogma! IOWs I am going to ask a question that should have been asked of you a long time ago, you are a Catholic that is NOT IN LINE WITH HOLY SEE OF ROME? BTW, that requires a yes or no answer and no hedging of the answer.

The reason for this question so that everyone may know, including you, is because the only way you could say that to me is to not recognize the Authority, Given by Christ, to the Church to the Seat of Peter through Apostolic Succession, to have the Right to be able to make the decisions that you continually call into question.

This is not an appropiate medium for such a discussion, but even if it were I wouldn't see anything edifying about discussing it with you.

 

[Ave Maria]

It's not- it's a charitable, humane service done for a child not for an adult. The Church is protecting the kids, there for the kids. They aren’t there to grant the gay adults their dreams of being a mommy when they're a man or their dream of being a daddy when they're a female or sharing mommyhood or daddyhood straight down the line.

It's not about an adult at all- gay or not. It's about the kids. Gay ppl need to go feed their egos somewhere else and stop using these kids to make them feel like their lifestyles are a normal part of society.

Amen! Great post! Gay people should not have ever been allowed to adopt children in the first place! I can see why it might be okay to place a child under the temporary protection of a gay person but definitely not under the long term care of them! I hope and pray that some day there will be some research showing just how devastating having gay parents is to a child and therefore bring about a law banning gays from adopting children.

 

[Debi1967]

This is not an appropiate medium for such a discussion, but even if it were I wouldn't see anything edifying about discussing it with you.

Christian Philosophy & Ethics

hmmmm you are sitting here telling me in a thread entitled .....

Don't tell ME it isn't a deviancy! . . . Catholics only, please.

in the Christian Philosphy and Ethics forum it is not appropriate?!?!

Actually if this thread was in the Non-Christian side of the Forum maybe, if you did not wear a Catholic icon, then you might have a point and if this thread was not specifically directed to and started in a forum, in which was not forum specific and for Catholics only such as OBOB then you would be correct .... but considering that it was started in OBOB, it is specifically only for Catholic posters, It is still in the Christian side of the board and is dealing with CHRISTIAN Philosophy and Ethics which are of course based upon the Morals we learn from God not man then my question of you was right on target and therefore a genuine one that deserves an answer. Considering especially, that you have shown throughout this thread, a continual disregard for the Church's Doctrines and Dogmas including that of Assention to the Church.... Which is primary and Key to any Catholic....

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Christian Philosophy & Ethics

hmmmm you are sitting here telling me in a thread entitled .....

Don't tell ME it isn't a deviancy! . . . Catholics only, please.

in the Christian Philosphy and Ethics forum it is not appropriate?!?!

Actually if this thread was in the Non-Christian side of the Forum maybe, if you did not wear a Catholic icon, then you might have a point and if this thread was not specifically directed to and started in a forum, in which was not forum specific and for Catholics only such as OBOB then you would be correct .... but considering that it was started in OBOB, it is specifically only for Catholic posters, It is still in the Christian side of the board and is dealing with CHRISTIAN Philosophy and Ethics which are of course based upon the Morals we learn from God not man then my question of you was right on target and therefore a genuine one that deserves an answer. Considering especially, that you have shown throughout this thread, a continual disregard for the Church's Doctrines and Dogmas including that of Assention to the Church.... Which is primary and Key to any Catholic....

A public message board is not an appropiate medium for complex and controversial topics.

 

[Debi1967]

A public message board is not an appropiate medium for complex and controversial topics.

Umm this is not a complex issue you are either in line with the Holy See or you are not ..... that is far from complex .... actually that is pretty straightforward ....

Simple yes or no

 

[kimber1]

i don't think ANYONE should be questioning anyone elses catholicocisity (if that's even a word) fragments is Catholic and that's all that should matter.

 

[Debi1967]

i don't think ANYONE should be questioning anyone elses catholicocisity (if that's even a word) fragments is Catholic and that's all that should matter.

I am not questioning her Christianity I am not even questioning whether she is catholic .... I am questioning whether she is in line with the Holy See or not .... that is a different question altogether, one that has been brought one by her own postings in this thread ....

Again considering that this thread was moved from OBOB where she started posting to it, and where she posts on a continual basis, many times opposed to doctrinal teachings, and considering that one of the rules of OBOB is that the Catholics that post and DEBATE there be in line with the Holy See then it is a perfectly normal question for me to ask. Considering this thread is ONLY for Catholics, it is still a perfectly normal question for me to ask....