Okay, I get it. I think? The Catholic agency was, if even in some small way, acting as an agent of the state perhaps? If so and if churches are going to accept roles like that then perhaps they have to accept that there will be strings? If an agency is going to work with the state then it has obligations to the citizens of that state. Playing Devil's Advocate I'd guess that pointing that out was part of the point of the couple. That's where real church-state seperation (which neither the USA nor Canada really has I'd wager despite all our talk) would benefit a church. In that story lies the danger of tying religious groups to government. Ultimately, it's the governments interests that will rule.
Sadly, the church took a small hit. The children who were displaced were the victims. Where children are concerned, there is no room for private agendas. This is why I homeschool.
Yes. The church decided it would be better to drop out altogether, rather than compromise its principles and place children in that situation.
The church didn't have a leg to stand on, not because of what the Pope supposedly said, but because homosexuality was declared legal in this particular state. Like California's Prop 8, the law would have forced churches to go against their beliefs had it failed. I am not Catholic but I am wondering what Pope said this and when. Because the current Pope is 100% against homosexuality. This isn't to say that what you said isn't true. It is possible one of the previous Popes said this. I do not know because I didn't hear anything about it.:love: Here are a few articles where the Pope/Catholic church comes against homosexuality. There is also one that shows of another Catholic agency having to shut down because of Blairs rule. Granted it is not in the states but it is a reality I think more and more churches are going to see. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6055696.ece http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/pope-shows-his-ignorance-of-ec.html http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052606.html
Woo Hoo! I found what I was looking for and then some! I was trying to find the article that talked about the Catholic church that backed away from adopting out in Boston, Mass. It isn't the exact article but it has some extra information that is new to me. It is interesting to say the least. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ I know some of you do not give much credence to Citizen Link but I thought it discusses what the original poster wanted to know. It is brief and I am sure leaves out some info but you all can look into it more if you would like. http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/bioethics/A000007970.cfm Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue. I have enjoyed it on many levels. For one, it makes me think and two, it makes me thankful that we can share without getting nasty. ...and if I was offensive to any of you or to anybody who hasn't posted, I apologize. That isn't my intention. I think the OP brought up a great question that has opened up areas that deal with religious freedoms. I know I take this for granted more than I should. Anyways, I love you all!!!
Homosexuality is, to my knowledge, legal in all states. Bringing that up as why the RC lost on this one doesn't make sense. Walking barefoot is legal but businesses have every right to refuse service or bar entry to barefoot patrons. Your article is interesting and presents the case as more complicated then I understood it to be. Seems the adoption agencies were adopting to gay couples and the Catholic Charities board had voted to continue those adoptions after it came to light that to the general Catholic community that they were happening. the problem seems less on of state legislation and more one of church politics in higher offices. This is also a case of the church pulling out rather then pushing for protection on religious grounds. It would have been interesting to see how it worked out if they'd chosen to engage the state on that one.
It was the Pope before this current one. Also, I need to point out that the adoption agency in this particular link was in England (if I'm reading it right), not in the US...England has a much different government than we do! Also, even though the new Pope spoke out about homose**** being a sin, I am curious to know if that has the same affect on the Catholic laws. I'm not Catholic, so I'm not sure how all that works. Plus, if I'm looking at the dates right, the adoption agency was closed before the Pope spoke out about it. I wonder if perhaps that prompted it? If this adoption agency did close before the new Pope spoke out about it, I DO believe that is a leg to stand on...because they would be preaching for something, then going back on their beliefs, regardless if we agree with them or not.
I'm confused...what is the first link in the last post...a different adoption agency??? If I'm reading the dates right, this did all happen before the new Pope spoke out about it. Even if you read that first link in the article about Tony Blair speaking to him, if you read inbetween the lines Tony is urging him to basically retract what the old Pope had stated about homosexuality. With that said, as much as I hate to say it, I do think they had a leg to stand on if that is the case. You can't preach for homosexuality then not adopt out a child to them. I'm not condoning the lifestyle choice (as I believe it is), but you can't lead a sheep to water and not let him drink. KWIM?
Jen, the one I was talking about was in Massachusetts. I can't say for sure what any one Pope has said. But the Church's authority is based on the unchanging Word of God. True believers of ANY denomination would hold to THAT, rather than the teachings/beliefs of one man.
Totally agree. God's universal church is based on the unchanging Word (at least it SHOULD be, but some churches aren't sadly)...however, if the Pope speaks out for/against something, the Catholic church has to abide. I know a few Christian's who are mislead into thinking the lifestyle is ok, and the old Pope is no more/less human than we are. So, I believe that his heart can be fooled just like ours. This is one reason I'm not Catholic. Too confusing to me. No offense to any Catholic's. I just prefer to go straight to the source myself. ETA: after doing some digging...I think the Pope spoke out about how homosexuality isnt necessarily "unsinful", but that it was considered a "disorder" and that because people "can be born that way" it should be accepted. Again...I don't agree with it, but when the Pope speaks, the Catholic church is suppose to listen.
The answer to the original question is Yes a church can be sued...however will the person win is another matter. If the church is careful and diligent when writing its bylaws and beliefs statement in most cases no the person could not win the lawsuit. However if the church did not carefully write its bylaws then it would be possible for the person to win the case.
The first link was a link to an article that discusses what happened with the church in Mass. The other link, on the post before the previous post was for a church in England. Growing up Catholic, I was always under the impression that the Roman Catholic churches, no matter what country, are all under the rule of the Pope. With that said, I also heard that over the years some Catholic churches have pulled away but then they would no longer be Roman Catholics. But, I have since been born again and haven't kept up on Catholicism like I did when I was Catholic so what I just posted could be 100% inaccurate. So forgive me if I am wrong.
Homosexuality is legal in all states. Gay marriage is illegal in most states. This is why I was pleased to find the article. It showed that the situation was more complex than originally thought. Still, when all the riff raff is put aside, the church still should have had the right to choose who they adopt out children to.
No, the Boston church and Westminster church situations happened under the current Pope; Pope Benedict XVl. He was elected (I am not sure if that is the correct word to use) in April 2005. These situations have taken place since. I believe they were between 2006 and earlier this year. I know what you mean but I don't agree, completely. Although you do have a point to ponder. I do not agree that they were correct in adopting out children to homosexual couples. But my understanding is they were battling between being shut down or compromising so eventually they felt it was wrong and shut down. I do not believe for one minute that these people were being led to water, then were refused. As I posted in a previous post, when this was being discussed on secular and Christian radio, both stations said these people were from a certain homosexual movement. Unfortunately I can't remember what group it was. Other homosexuals were calling in and coming against these people because they DID have an agenda. The homosexuals who called in were baffled that these people had such a strong desire to prove a point that precious children were displaced. When homosexuals come against other homosexuals as strongly as they came against this group or couple, this tells me there was an agenda. I think I posted this in a previous post as well, the Massachusetts church was willing to refer them to other agencies that might be able to help them but the couple refused. They wanted a child from this specific agency. My question is why? If they really wanted to adopt, wouldn't they have gone where the process would have been easier? Where they could have adopted? Wasn't the purpose to adopt a child and not shut down an orphanage? In the end, the couple didn't get their child, at least not from this place, and children were displaced.
Patty, I totally get what you're saying and I really do thank you for those links. Unfortunately there are some people who just like to make things difficult for others, and some people just don't get that not everyone will allow the "mainstreamers" to compromise God's Word. When I said "lead a sheep to water" though, I'm not sure if you understand where I'm coming from. I guess it was more or less a blanket statement, not referring to this couple necessarily. If the Catholic Church/The Pope decided that homosexuality would be accepted and someone seeks out a Catholic Adoption agency due to this very fact, then if that adoption agency is considered under those "laws", then it could be seen as being led untruthfully if a Catholic church is not following suit like they are suppose to. I'm not necessarily talking about this couple, just the situation in general. Not sure I'm making sense. Thank you for that tid bit of knowledge though. I really do enjoy learning.
In the midst of all this, I've been trying to understand who/what Tony Blair is all about. I've never really read up on him before. From what I read he wants this Pope to start thinking more mainstream because Pope's in the past were accepting of Homosexuals. ??? So, each Pope gets to change their doctrine based on their views??? I don't know. I don't get the whole "Pope" thing to be honest. It's all too confusing to me. lol
I already posted this link but I am adding it again so nobody has to go searching through our mass to get to it. I quoted a couple paragraphs from it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6055696.ece "Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals. " I believe the red part of the quote is what he is about in this matter. "The Pope, who is 82, remains firmly opposed to any relaxation of the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality, contraception or any other area of human sexuality. He has described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”. " The above tells me that the Pope sees homosexuality as evil. Since the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, he is also the leader of Roman Catholic churches throughout the world, which tells me he can change things if he believes they are incorrect.
See, that's what I thought. But does that mean that any Pope can just change the Catholic doctrine then? That kind of irks me, because being that the Word is never changing, how can under one Pope it be "ok", then under another one "not be ok"? That's a huge things to change. Ugh...again...this is why I'm not Catholic.:lol: I'll stick to my little Protestant/Bible church. I hope the new Pope doesn't fall to Tony Blair's mainstream thinking. So far, he seems to have his head on straight from what I've read.
