Commentary: Opinion
Defending the right for religion to exist
So, it's come to exist. A law firm is defending the Church's right to exist in the face of political persecution.
Defending the right for religion to exist
So, it's come to exist. A law firm is defending the Church's right to exist in the face of political persecution.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Stephanie Block
I know a Catholic priest who’s convinced he will die in jail, incarcerated for upholding Church teaching. The first time he made the remark, it seemed a bit dramatic but, as time passes, one wonders…
In March 2006, the city of San Francisco – where else? – issued a non-binding resolution, sponsored by city Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is also a spokesman for the local Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, which read:
Resolution urging Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity has head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.
WHEREAS, It is a insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City's existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need; and
WHEREAS, The statements of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican that “Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households,” and “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children” are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco; and,
WHEREAS, Such hateful and Discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, Same sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples; and
WHEREAS, Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights saw this resolution as markedly anti-Catholic and, in response, asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to decide en ban if the city and county of San Francisco had violated the Establishment Clause – making hostility to the Catholic religion an official policy of the city – with this resolution (Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, 06-17328).
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t see any such violation by the resolution, contrasting the Church’s “religious” perspective to the city’s secular “dimension” that believed its “culture and tradition …. threatened by the specific directive issued to the Archdiocese.” The secular body, acting from a “context” of equality for gays and lesbians, according to the court, was only defending itself – not promoting one religious belief over another or interfering with the Church’s internal affairs.
The Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy organization based in Michigan, has filed an en banc review, resulting in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rehearing the case. The Center contends that the San Francisco resolution violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, says his organization is “fully committed to fighting homosexual activists who seek to promote their personal political agenda at the expense of our constitutional freedoms.” Material available at the Thomas More Law Center website (www.thomasmore.org) goes on to explain: “According to Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. Such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households.”
Further, the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community.”
This will be an important case to watch.
I know a Catholic priest who’s convinced he will die in jail, incarcerated for upholding Church teaching. The first time he made the remark, it seemed a bit dramatic but, as time passes, one wonders…
In March 2006, the city of San Francisco – where else? – issued a non-binding resolution, sponsored by city Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is also a spokesman for the local Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, which read:
Resolution urging Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity has head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.
WHEREAS, It is a insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City's existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need; and
WHEREAS, The statements of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican that “Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households,” and “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children” are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco; and,
WHEREAS, Such hateful and Discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, Same sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples; and
WHEREAS, Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights saw this resolution as markedly anti-Catholic and, in response, asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to decide en ban if the city and county of San Francisco had violated the Establishment Clause – making hostility to the Catholic religion an official policy of the city – with this resolution (Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, 06-17328).
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t see any such violation by the resolution, contrasting the Church’s “religious” perspective to the city’s secular “dimension” that believed its “culture and tradition …. threatened by the specific directive issued to the Archdiocese.” The secular body, acting from a “context” of equality for gays and lesbians, according to the court, was only defending itself – not promoting one religious belief over another or interfering with the Church’s internal affairs.
The Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy organization based in Michigan, has filed an en banc review, resulting in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rehearing the case. The Center contends that the San Francisco resolution violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, says his organization is “fully committed to fighting homosexual activists who seek to promote their personal political agenda at the expense of our constitutional freedoms.” Material available at the Thomas More Law Center website (www.thomasmore.org) goes on to explain: “According to Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. Such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households.”
Further, the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community.”
This will be an important case to watch.
Stephanie Block edits the New Mexico-based Los Pequenos newspaper and is a founder of the Catholic Media Coalition.
7777888
Note: Bolds, Highlights, trebuchet, and verdana fonts added.
P.S. In its intent the case is a valid one; It's preposterous to place children in homes where there isn't a mother and father.
However, the party spearheading this case, those questioning the pratice or the ethics of placing children for adoption in 'alternative lifestyle households', in this instance is rather strange. How can the Catholic church and its priests preach morality in California where they have paid $660 in rape/molestation suits? Let's be consistent for goodness sake. Not everyone has a 30 minute attention span, or only short term memory?
A monastic pseudo-christian body has nothing to contribute to a society that mainly consists of families. Get a wife, get a life! Have your own children, then you can defend children with 'legitimate morals'. In the mean time your cause is marred with hypocrisy. In my opinion, LGBT's aren't qualified to adopt; But, your bachelor priests lack the moral fibre to preach against it!
To be celibate is one thing, but, God never condemned thousands of men and women to be single, and to be sequestered in seminaries or convents to show Him their love; That's Babylonian, Hindu, and Buddhist tradition, not Christian doctrine. Search the Bible; Check the history books, please.
Point number 2. Thomas More was a heinous murderer; He had many Protestants burned at the stake during his brutal persecution of Reformed Christians in England. He was one of those responsible for the Star Chamber edict against so-called heresy.
The Catholic church has never received as much persecution as it has meted out!
So, now you think you're being persecuted? Read the Bible, and read history if you want to see what persecution is about.
I suggest you google the word "The Inquisition".
How ignorant of the meaning of the word persecution can you be with so much edu-ma-cation in your seminaries?
Arsenio.
.
