Lovely readings for Gaudete Sunday. Here in Boston, I proclaimed the second reading at Mass, with Paul telling us that "the will of God for you" is to rejoice, to pray always, and to give thanks in all circumstances. In the light of this, how well do we do the will of God these days?
I ask this with a particular edge, almost, after reading about a local controversy. It seems that there are some Catholic activists who are making an effort to "bring down" Boston Catholic Charities by sabotaging its annual fundraiser. I couldn't fathom it, because first the protest focused on the fact that both the Archbishop and the local Mayor (who has declared himself pro-abortion in some way) were to be present together at the fundraiser. Mayors' stands on abortion really have no impact, unless those mayors have their sites set on higher office (which can often be the case). But then it turns out the real problem was that until a recent Vatican statement forbidding Catholic agencies from being involved in adoptions by same-sex couples, Catholic Charities in Boston had complied with state law mandating that they not deny these couples the possibility of adopting. (Catholic Charities receives some funding from the state.) My understanding is that Catholic Charities is now in conformity with the Vatican directive. But this seems to be the issue which got the protest going.
I am in full agreement with the Vatican observation that there is a subtle violence in raising children in a same-sex household (and from what I understand, a lot of the evidence of how this situation affects children psychologically is being re-interpreted so that any difficulties are seen as the child's own neurosis and not the lifestyle issue), but it seems to me that until a real directive came from the Holy See, the director of Catholic Charity did not do wrong in attempting to navigate this very sticky wicket in the light of the immediate good of the children, as best discerned case by case. Children in abusive situations, children in serial foster care, also suffer profound psychological disruption, and at times it really may have seemed in the children's best interest to place them in a stable, if irregular, situation, rather than leave them in foster care. How many of the activists who protested the charity are hosting multiple foster children with psychological disorders or learning disabilities? I do not impune their orthodoxy or their good will, but I wonder if there may be a leisurely sort of judgment at work: an armchair exercise conducted strictly on the basis of ideals in which the best can be the enemy of the good. How much of this is really about the good of those children (or the needy pregnant mothers whom Catholic Charity also helps so vastly), and how much is a kind of political game played with Catholic vocabulary? (Boy, is that dangerous.) I find it appalling that because of a difference of judgment (in a case which has since been resolved in conformity with the Vatican statement), people would attempt to compromise the fundraising of an organization which is currently preventing a lot of abortions by providing necessary care to the poor--unless those persons can assume the burden of care themselves. Outside of that, I really wonder if this is a kind of power game.
Key words in Advent are "Keep watch!"
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's more subtle than that...some people adopt to make a "social statement"....which is why, after the TV show "different strokes" was a hit, the black social workers decided to put a moritorium on adoption across racial lines: Partly because it was better for self esteem to be raised with people like you (especially since black kids with poor relatives were being shunted to richer two parent white families)...So there is a danger that gays will adopt to make a social statement...
However, as a woman who adopted her sons as a single mom, I have much less worry about two lesbians in a stable relationship adopting children...as long as they, like other "single" mothers, make sure their children have male role models. Indeed, many already have kids by prior marriages or by artificial insemination...
However, I DO have problems with male gays adopting...many are kind, sensative fathers, but statistically the chance of dying of HIV, and also the dirty little secret of their promiscuity, makes them poor role models for such children.
Social workers are supposed to screen for mental stability, health risks, drug use, and for promiscuous behavior...however, in these PC times, no one wants to do this with gay couples....
Thank you for a thoughtful response. And it is true that political correctness can compromise the best endeavors. That is part of the issue with the denial of trauma in the cases of children being raised by a parent and his/her same-sex companion. The parents themselves need the kids to affirm the "normalcy" or acceptability of the situation, and so in that role reversal, kids have to repress their genuine response. I'd like to see these issues raised in the public forum, but I don't think protests are the way to go. As it is, today's Globe had a really nasty take on the protest group, and it did nothing to encourage one to find out what serious issues were involved.
I appreciate the dialogue that's started here. Boinky's response is attention getting especially insofar as her distinction between gay men and lesbian women in re: adoptive parenting.
For clarity's sake, I should start with a note that with my contribution to the conversation I am not proposing a debate on the Church's teaching. It is what it is, and it is ALL that it is. My comments are offered to the larger dialogue on these related issues and in their entirety not to Boinky's post alone.
It's out of a sense of justice (HIV/AIDS is one of my areas of academic and ministerial expertise) that I feel compelled to point out in charity that the position the respondent proposes is ill-informed as far as the factors on which she relies.
Here in the US in particular, while gay communities appeared to be "hardest hit" early on the HIV pandemic, today heterosexual women are most at risk for infection and that is the group where infection rates continue to rise, particularly in communities of color. Not to clarify that point would be passively to reinforce a dangerous social misconception.
The reference to hidden promiscuity also unfortunately relies on popular (mis)conceptions. Questions of moral acceptability aside for a moment, there is a substantial body of reliable/objective social science research that asserts that the rate of promiscuity is no higher among stable same-sex relationships than stable/ committed opposite sex relationships.
The other thing is that there are many cases in our society where children are, for example, raised by two females in the household (consider a mother and a grandmother co-raising children as has occurred in my family). Many children raised by two women turn out "just fine." Children raised in same-sex ("homosexual") households unfortunately often face the added burden of homophobia, but in reality, according to Church teaching, homophobia is our moral responsibility to fix.
That said, I would also like to caution us all to recognize our obligation to be very aware of and then follow the Church's multidimensional teachings, in this case regarding (homo)sexuality. The fact is yes, the Church teaches that homosexuals should not be sexually active. However, the Church also teaches that all Catholics have an obligation to speak out against homophobia and related injustices and, from a pastoral perspective, ministers in the Church (and by extension all of us) are told not to assume that gays and lesbians on the individual level are sexually active or living outside the Church's teaching. In addition, the same pastoral letter clearly states that "nothing in Church teaching or the Bible" may be used to justify discriminatory actions. It's true that there are many "gray areas" in life, but the Church gives us clear guidance as to what our guiding principles should be.
For those who haven't read it, I strongly encourage reading (at least) the United States Bishops' pastoral letter, "Always Our Children." It's very informative, eye opening in places, and challenging. It's a good place to start if one is interested in reading other Church documents on the subject.
Unfortunately, for the most part, Catholics in general are not well read as far as the original Church documents. This is even more so the case with sexuality. As an example, if quizzed, a vast majority of Catholics (and non-Catholics) would know of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching only the secular media soundbite "... objectively disordered..." which, by the way, many are suprised to learn does not reference psychology but is a moral theology term for "incapable of resulting in procreation under 'normal' circumstances."
I think it's very important for us as Catholics to orient ourselves more towards going to the source, in this case Church documents, rather than only relying on "hearsay" or popular perception. It's also important to consider the diversity within any group. As an illustration, there are quite a number of committed same-sex couples who live together celibately. Truthfully the Church has no opposition to their "lifestyles." They are in fact "living in accord with the Church's teachings" and may according to Church teaching receive the Holy Eucharist. Unfortunately these people are often not considered in discussions on this subject and even more sadly are not on many people's "pastoral radar."
As for the Vatican directive Sister Anne referenced, unfortunately I am not familiar with it and so have not read it. So I have my next reading assignment identified (Thanks, Sister!) once I locate the title and find it online.
On a somewhat related note, I really feel on a personal level that the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Boston has been through soooo much during these recent years that it's really time for healing even if only in small steps. What comes to mind is "Let go, and let God!"
Sister Anne's point about the role we can play unintentionally when we join protests on either end of the ideological spectrum really strikes home for me and pushes me to ask myself more directly where I am and how I am seen when I join a public response -- whatever the subject/issue may be.
Sorry, this ran longer than I expected. I just started speaking from the heart and hope this doesn't sound like a ramble.
Peace,
Lisa
cullensdaughter@aol.com
http://fromwhereiwrite.blogspot.com
Thanks for your well-informed take, Lisa. I was quite nervous in introducing the topic, but I can see we have a thoughtful conversation going. Thanks be to God!
Well this is certainly an interesting issue with much room for discussion. I didn't follow the controversy over the Catholic Charities dinner that carefully. Perhaps their first mistake was in inviting the mayor, since as a political figure that gesture could only be seen in a political way. I believe it is best for Catholic Charities to avoid politizing their activities and remain neutral.
But once that was done, it likely didn't do any good to stage a protest. Sometimes protests simply call undue attention to something that should suffer a little "benign neglect," to quote the late Senator Moynihan. What do protests really accomplish in the long run?
Post a Comment