Better Off Dead?

In a recent news item, I learned that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to end its participation in adoption placement because they could not obtain an exemption from state laws banning discrimination against homosexual couples who wish to adopt.

Several times over the last two years, I have pleaded with a certain Catholic pro-life organization to discontinue using images of aborted children in their efforts to prevent abortion. My request was reasonable and personal. At least one in four women and girls who abort will develop post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. One trigger for a traumatic response is an image of an aborted fetus, for me and for many women in my position. Considering the fact that nearly half of all women who seek an abortion today have aborted before, a symptom of trauma reenactment, I have appealed to their sense of reason. It is not logical to engage the trauma center of someone’s brain and then ask her to make a life or death decision based on rational thought. But like other pro-life groups who are so attached to this weapon, I have been told that anything goes when it comes to saving the life of a child from the abortionist.

Anything, that is, except allowing the child to be adopted into a gay family. If there is any evidence that gay parents raise gay children, I haven’t heard of it. And gay children are more desirable than dead ones. I am ashamed of Catholic Charities, and ashamed of a mindset that says the ends justify the means, unless the means involve homosexuals raising children who would otherwise be aborted. Apparently, dead is better than gay.

Author's Note, added on May 11, 2006:

I've given the issue further consideration, and I believe I have a better understanding of what Catholic Charities is trying to do. It is inconsistent with Church teaching against homosexuality to cooperate in a manner that would suggest the sin is condoned. I understand this now, and the need for consistency.

My objection remains, however, against our getting out of the adoption business altogether as a solution to the problem. In the Southwest, in particular, Catholics who work in any capacity to serve the poor and disadvantaged were encouraged to conscientiously object to any immigration legislation that would criminalize offering assistance to illegal aliens. It would have been more courageous for Catholic Charities to do this as regards placement of adopted children as well; or to fight the battle in court, if it has not already been challenged to its limits and denied. I consider this a case of religious freedom, which does not protect the government from relgion so much as it should protect religion from government. As long as Catholic Charities is not subsidized by tax dollars, I disagree with any law that would force this institution to violate its own belief system while performing acts of mercy in accordance with the faith.