I do think that the State is using coercion in an unjust manner. I am looking for opinions from various points of view on this issue. I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion.
Open Thread: Is The Fact that the State is Forcing Govt Funded Catholic Adoption Agencies to Place Children with Same-Sex Couples a Form of Unjust Coercion by the State?
November 30, 2011 by Teresa Rice
7 Responses
Leave a Reply
Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus
Pope Francis
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
Archives
Meta
-
Blogs I Follow
Simply stated, YES! Where is the “separation of Church and State” now?
Do you mean should Catholic adoption agencies take goverment money for adoption placements but leave children homeless? No, don’t take the money if you don’t want to do the work.
My two cents:
The State is saying that for the State to contract out some of its foster-care and adoption work to other agencies — particularly ones which benefit from the money the government has collected from taxes — then that agency has to abide by standards of anti-discrimination. The state is not obliged to enter into contracts with agencies that are not willing to maintain standards of anti-discrimination. That doesn’t put such agencies out of work, it should be noted. LDS Family Services, in Mass., so far as I know, still operates quite comfortably within the framework of the law. Unlike Catholic Charities, LDS did not and does not accept government moneys collected from the tax payer.
I think a good argument can be made that some states have been unwise. I don’t think it constitutes unjust discrimination, however. I understand that many people believe it does but my growing experience is that such people, largely, do not understand the specifics of what they are discussing.
Mr. KjW:
While looking over a couple articles and the actual legislation it was hard to tell a couple of things.
It was hard to tell whether the State of Illinois is the only entity which authorizes adoptions or not, or are the state contracts the only place adoptions can be approved. I’m guessing that the State contracts included monetary compensation to the agency but I didn’t see any verification of that.
In the actual text of the legislation it states that “The Act would ensure that religious denominations are not forced to recognize or solemnize civil unions. The Act expressly provides that: “Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union.” Every religious tradition can decide for itself whether or not to officiate at civil union ceremonies.
This Act would also not impact faith-based adoption agencies or adoption procedures. The Act does not amend the Adoption Act.”
But, then the State of Illinois goes on to discriminate against Catholic Charities. So, was this part of the legislation meaningless?
For the record I don’t think it was wise for Catholic Charities to accept money from the State for their services. But the United States founding and constitution is based on liberty and freedom, including religious freedom. Even with the money being factored in I just believe the state of Illinois has crossed a line in violating the religious rights of Catholic Charities. I think it is a form of unjust coercion for the state of Illinois to demand that a faith-based organization abandon conscience or principles just so the State will approve their adoptions.
But I wonder whether the money was the main factor or only part of the equation in Illinois’ decision to stop approving adoptions, or if the money part was taken out of the equation then the State would have approved Catholic Charities adoptions.
Teresa did not ask the question of whether it was unjust discrimination, but whether it was unjust coercion by the state. It is very obviously an unjust use of the state’s coercive power, nevertheless, I agree that the agencies that accepted federal money and became dependent on such funds for their survival left themselves open and vulnerable to such coercion. They should have known better and stayed independent. If they cannot function without such money they should close rather than compromise the principles that are inseparable from their core identity. I will go further than that. If, after the bad consequences of this policy and the political backlash it produces leads to some powerful people losing position and prestige, the state should wish to reverse this policy and go back to the way things were, Catholic agencies should refuse. Back to the way things were means back to being vulnerable to such shifting political sands. Rather, they should say, “We will not accept your offer unless you permanently relinquish your power to force us to choose between compromising our non-negotiable moral principles and closing our doors because of a sudden catastrophic loss of funding.”
Let me correct some mistakes of fact by Kelly and others.
No one has demanded that Catholic Charities not discriminate. They are allowed to discriminate and the state does not second guess the placement of a child in the home Catholic Charities thinks is best when a decision has to be made as to who would be the best parent. The issue has been to allow Catholic Charities to leave a child homeless rather than allow a gay person to adopt him or her. To that, everal states have said we will not give you taxpayer money if that is your policy.
Second, Kevin mentions federal funds. This has solely been a matter of state funding. Public opinion has also been widely on the side of not leaving children homeless and against adoption agencies that actually refuse to allow a child to be adopted just because the only qualified foster parent or guardian they can find is gay.
Lastly, many Catholic adoption services still do the right thing and don’t refuse to consider gay people as foster or adoptive parents. God bless them. Others don’t. This is a matter in which there is no consistent practice.
OOPs! That “federal funds” part of my comment must have been a brain fart. My fingers must have thought I was writing another post. I knew that it was about state funds, not just because I understood the subject under discussion and read the posts that sparked this conversation, but because I was adopted as an infant through a Catholic adoption agency. It is a subject I know something about, which makes my mis-type all the more odd. So my concession to the point is that Catholic agencies remain independent and refuse state funding. Actually, all government funding – if there is federal funding involved they should refuse that also a fortiori.