Putting Homophobia First
I’ve got a real “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude about Catholicism. On the one hand, I have no problem with the religion itself and think Catholic commitment to social service puts most protestant denominations to shame, but I think the church leadership is hypocritical to its core (as well as corrupt, mob-like, etc..) Case in point, the church is ending a great program because their hatred of gays apparently outweighs their love of children.
The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.
. . .
Archbishop Sean O’Malley, who had sought an exemption from the law, said the church was faced with a choice between its faith and the state law.“Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago,” he said in a statement.
Archbishop O’Malley. It would be one thing if you were taking some principled stand here, but your adherence to Catholic tradition and morals doesn’t seem to be strong enough to survive “green beer day” :
Sticking to a voluntary meatless Lenten penitence gets tricky for Catholics when St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Friday.Traditionally, Catholics substitute fish for meat on Fridays during the 40 days of Lent as a reminder of the sacrifices of Christ.
However, for the second consecutive year, the Irish Catholic observance — celebrating the patron saint of Ireland — falls on Friday, March 17, the day many Catholics of Irish descent enjoy customary corned beef and cabbage meals.
Realizing the potential dilemma, Bishop Robert J. Carlson, head of the 132,000-member Catholic Diocese of Saginaw, is giving parishioners permission to eat meat to celebrate St. Patrick’s.
. . .
Many Catholic bishops across the country are giving permission to parishioners. But some bishops have refused to let their congregations off the hook.For example, a telephone poll of church leaders giving the go-ahead includes New York’s Cardinal Edward Egan, Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk and Covington, Ky., Bishop Roger Foys, Brooklyn, N.Y.’s Bishop Thomas Dailey and Boston Cardinal-designate Sean O’Malley.
And just like you’re exercising your religious freedom by puting your prejudices above your commitments to helping children, I’m going to excercise my first amendment right to call your beliefs complete bullshit. Apparently the flexibility of Catholic doctrine is dependent on the whims of the church leaders, not the best interests of the people they’re trying to help.
12 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
so, since adoption isn’t an option and the church doesn’t approve of abortion, will they finally join the 21st century and allow their parishioners to take birth control?… i didn’t think so- so disappointing
Comment by Erin — March 21, 2006 @ 8:30 am
With fewer adoptions, more tender young flesh gets to stay in the orphanage!
Comment by dAnimal — March 21, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
dAnimal beat me to it.
Really, why should anyone pay any attention to what the Catholic Church has to say re: morality anymore?
When they allowed children to be molested for decades, they clearly showed that they have no morals.
Comment by dAVE — March 21, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
I’m surprised they aren’t happy with the Massachusetts law because now it’s legal for gay priests to adopt kids.
Comment by dat a boy — March 21, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
“…will they finally join the 21st century and allow their parishioners to take birth control?”
I’m from Kansas, and I went back there for my nephew’s baptism… The priest’s homily was a rant against birth control and abortion…which I thought was rather ironic considering one prevents the other. He also criticized women who get hysterectomies because it’s a “form of birth control.” That blew my mind.
Comment by dat a boy — March 21, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
The global problem which arose when priests were allowed to molest children demonstrated to me that the Catholics are there for the church, the church is not there for the people. They also know that gay people will raise their kids to be Unitarians or some other liberal religious religion.
Comment by Becky — March 22, 2006 @ 8:33 am
Almost completely OT, but your news quote contains an error (their fault, not yours):
… for the second consecutive year, the Irish Catholic observance — celebrating the patron saint of Ireland — falls on Friday, March 17….
March 17, 2005, was a Thursday, not a Friday. In fact, the same date never falls on the same day of the week in two consecutive years – unless someone changed the calendar when I wasn’t looking and added some 364-day years!
</nitpick>
Comment by Mathwiz — March 22, 2006 @ 8:46 am
Slight nitpick with the last bit- special exceptions for meat on Fridays (or any day in Lent, back in the day) are always handled by cardinals/bishops, because of the odd emphasis Catholicism puts on Papal pronouncements. The traditional rule is that the exceptions are given for “feast days,” of which St. Patrick’s Day is not technically a member- but areas where a large portion of the congregation is Irish descended have given exceptions for almost a century, if I recall. So it’s really not a fair hit on O’Malley (there are certainly plenty that you could get him on- most American Cardinals aren’t exactly up with the whole “give everything you have to the poor” bit)
If I seem a little touchy about this, it’s because as an ex-Catholic who looks the part I get the “Aren’t you Catholics wierd because of X?” all the damned time from members of Protestant denominations that are, if anything, odder (Full immersion Baptism? Wierd. Secret underpants? Also wierd. Biblical Literalists serving grape juice at Mass? Really Wierd). There’s an assumption in our culture that “Catholicism = Abnormal in some deep manner” that seems ingrained to the point that even people who are well-informed about the idiosyncrasies of most religions will continue to hold it.
Comment by Moleman — March 22, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
The grape juice for Bible literalists thing always got to me, too. There was a guy at Greg and I’s high school that would be using 3 as the value of Pi in math class, yet told me that when the Bible talks about wine in the Bible, what he meant to say was “grape juice.” Then again, when Jesus said “love thy neighbor as thyself” I guess he meant “and make sure your neighbors in other countries work in literally slavish conditions so that your American neighbors can be put out of jobs,” and all the other cruel and selfish things that Bible literalists enjoy letting slide.
Comment by dAnimal — March 22, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
Nah. I beg to differ.
It´s a classic case of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.
Options:
o Close the operation altogether
o Be forced to service fags
or
o Get the shirt sued off your back (oh, and the G-string)
-Clearly, only the first option is viable, and it should be obvious where the blame lies.
Holy Saint Gambrinus, what will be called homophobic next? That I refuse to blow them?
(Disclosure: The usual offers are more, erm, vice versa – yet to date no one called me a homophobe for politely declining. But I see it´s only a question of time.)
Comment by nokangaroos — March 23, 2006 @ 2:57 am
nokangaroos, first of all, I thought the majority of G-strings were worn by heterosexual women, many of them mothers or mothers-to-be.
Secondly, telling gay parents that they are not allowed to adopt children is saying that they are not fit parents based exclusively on the fact that they are not straight. That is homophobic. What, you think that because a man prefers to kiss men than to kiss women, he can’t help a child with his homework, or drive kids to soccer practice?
Comment by dAnimal — March 24, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
can you write a movie on this web i got a movie im writing its call get your weight up
let me know email me my name is ronnie love rl_elmo@hotmail.com
Comment by ronnie — March 28, 2006 @ 9:43 am