Magisterial Fidelity
A Roman Catholic Mom from Boston





Send help.
Carol M. McKinley



cmmckinley@aol.com




Thursday, March 23, 2006 :::
 

Great article on National Review Online on the antiCatholic Debacle in Massachusetts

Let Catholic Charities be Catholic
by Father Thomas D. Williams

It's hard to take any quotes out of context as representative..the whole article is well-prestented...





Let’s cut through the rhetoric of “discrimination” that only clouds the issue. The simple fact is that all adoption agencies discriminate — that is the purpose of the evaluation of prospective parents. Candidates must run a gruelling gauntlet of tests, interviews, and questionnaires covering everything from their financial situation to their personal histories, education and criminal record. The commonwealth of Massachusetts applies any number of litmus tests to weed out unsuitable candidates. Let’s just take the example of financial discrimination. The poor may not adopt. In order to adopt, couples must not only demonstrate economic solvency, but wealth. I personally know of several loving, married, middle-class couples that have been denied adoption simply because their bank account wasn’t big enough. The question then becomes, not whether agencies should discriminate, but rather, on what grounds they should discriminate.

Catholic Charities believes that same-sex caregivers do not provide an atmosphere that is conducive to the well-rounded rearing of children. Despite all the talk of generic “parenting,” mothers and fathers are not androgynous, interchangeable “parental units." A mother is not expendable and cannot be replaced by a second father. When she is missing, something essential is lost. To deliberately deprive a child of a mother or a father is to do violence to that child. Moreover, not only are both parents necessary for the unique contribution each provides, they also furnish an example of interaction between the sexes themselves.

As Jarret Barrios proved by putting his child under the warm blankets to elevate his temperature when the child came down with a high fever....a mother is a necessary component to the welfare of a child.

Her gentility and ability to form intimacy in her children, teach them to love, nurse them, caer for them...all necessary.


Some have countered that entrusting children to gay couples, while perhaps not the best option, beats the alternatives. There simply are not enough available married couples willing to adopt, and gays fill the gap. Yet this logic is based on two false premises. First, there are long lines of married couples waiting to adopt a child, many of whom spend years navigating the labyrinthine adoption process. Most often, what are lacking are not adoptive parents, but children to adopt. The process can become so frustrating and drawn out that many opt for other alternatives, like adopting a child from a foreign country. Second, where gay adoption is permitted, no special rules apply granting preference to married couples, and children are placed indiscriminately with homosexual couples and heterosexuals. Once again, the determining factor often becomes income, as if a plasma television, MP3 player, and Game Boy were more important for a child than a mother and father

The end!

Where's Hillary Clinton when her Democrats have been outlawing Jesus in Massachusetts for the past five years??


::: posted by prolife pundits at 4:45 PM

|

|





_______________
_______________





Powered by Blogger