Church and State, and "suffer the little children"

There’s a huge political fight going on in Massachusetts right now, pitting two great forces against each other. And I find myself taking a side I didn’t foresee ever sympathizing with.

Massachusetts is not just a “blue state.” It’s quite possibly the bluest of the blue states. It gave us Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, gay marriage, two openly-gay members of Congress (Barney Frank and Gerry Studds), Susan Estrich, Harvard, the People’s Republic of Cambridge, and a host of other bastions of liberalism. It is the ideal of enlightenment, of tolerance, of acceptance, of diversity, and woe unto any who disagree. There is very little tolerance for those found guilty of intolerance.

One aspect of this is Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination laws. No agency that does business with the state, especially those that act as agents of the state. They may not discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or a host of other factors.

And last week, that policy erupted into a major conflict, as one major charitable organization found itself in conflict with one of those tenets.

Catholic Charities does a host of good works in Massachusetts. One of their major works is in handling adoptions, and last year they placed 41 children with new parents, making them one of the five top agencies in the state. But they follow tradtional Catholic teachings — and that includes a non-acceptance of homosexuality.

Over the last 20 years, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children with adoptive families, and 13 of those families were gay couples. But recently the Archdiocese of Boston informed the Charities that from now on, they will abide by Church teachings and principles, and will NOT place children with gay couples.

The directors of the charity argued, but to no use. All 42 directors unanimously appealed Archbishop Sean O’Malley’s directive, but he was unswayed. Eight of them resigned in protest, but finally the board accepted the Archbishop’s ruling.

The state, however, didn’t. They are saying that if Catholic Charities wishes to continue in the adoption business, they’ll have to consider gay couples.

Governor Romney says he’ll file legislation permitting Catholic Charities to abide by Church policies and remain providing adoption services. Until that time, though, Catholic Charities is out of the adoption business.

Now, I have no great fondness for the Catholic Church as a whole, and the Boston archdiocese in particular. I think a great many of their teachigns are wrong, and their own conduct during the pedophile priest scandal was nothing short of reprehensible. In fact, the decades-long coverup by Church officials, involving quiet payoffs to victims and shuffling pedophile priests on to new, unsuspecting parishes where they could — and did — prey anew on children worthy of investigation under the RICO statutes. The Church’s conduct in that matter left, to me, a huge, indelible stain on their moral credibility.

But in this case, I think the state is going too far in their fight with the church. While I agree in principle with the state’s position, the simple fact is that Catholic Charities does NOT hold a monopoly on adoption placement in Massachusetts. There are numerous other agencies and means of adoption available, and I don’t believe that Catholic Charities should be forced to violate its own tenets.

I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state. I don’t want any church holding sway over government, and I don’t want government to control any church. But there are areas where these two will necessarily come into contact, and in those cases the matter must be settled in a reasonable, sensible manner. In this particular case, the harm caused by the church’s conflict with existing law is negligible, and the greater good is not being served. Massachusetts should not change its laws, but it should carve out an exception for this case — and others like it.

Here Endth The Bonfire
Unemployment Rates: Then and Now


  1. peacemoonbeam March 11, 2006
  2. JSchuler March 11, 2006
  3. Dr. Tom Hudson March 11, 2006
  4. Jay Tea March 11, 2006
  5. D. Doré March 11, 2006
  6. mantis March 11, 2006
  7. bryanD March 11, 2006
  8. DocJ March 11, 2006
  9. paul March 11, 2006
  10. mantis March 11, 2006
  11. Dodo David March 11, 2006
  12. Omni March 11, 2006
  13. Sportin' Life March 11, 2006
  14. just me March 11, 2006
  15. Sportin' Life March 11, 2006
  16. Synova March 11, 2006
  17. Lowell Skelton March 12, 2006
  18. My Boaz's Ruth March 12, 2006
  19. Lowell Skelton March 12, 2006
  20. Synova March 12, 2006
  21. Lowell Skelton March 12, 2006
  22. SCSIwuzzy March 12, 2006
  23. Mac Lorry March 12, 2006
  24. Synova March 12, 2006
  25. Sportin' Life March 12, 2006
  26. Synova March 13, 2006
  27. Ric March 13, 2006
  28. Lowell Skelton March 17, 2006
  29. paula March 30, 2006