58 Comments - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:17 pm: Totally unpredictable… - King Louis XVI - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:17 pm: –“It’s tragic that there are people who believe unnecessarily disrupting the lives of thousands of vulnerable children is an acceptable outcome in this situation.”– It is indeed tragic that Catholic Charities is disrupting the lives of these children to enforce their prejudices. Tragic. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:22 pm: KL, I’m more than a little squeamish about forcing anyone to violate their religious principles. On the other hand, they’re state subsidized. Tough one for me. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:28 pm: –“Child welfare advocates know it is in the best interest of Illinois children for Catholic Charities to stay in this business,” said Steven Roach, Executive Director for Catholic Charities in the Springfield Diocese.– What “business” is that? False piety? Sticking your nose in good people’s “business?” I went to a graduation party down the street Saturday for the adopted daughter of a couple of ladies. A male couple across the street brought home in January a beautiful baby girl who’s the happiest, smilingest little peanut you ever saw. For the life of me, I never read anything in the Gospels that would lead me to believe that there was something immoral about these happy homes, something that would require them to be ostracized by loud talking, faith-on-their-sleeves Christians. What is going through these peoples minds? - Yep - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:33 pm: It saddens me as a Catholic that my church is so far behind the times on this issue. That being said, if they want to continue their current practice, they should quit taking state dollars. If they want to continue to take state dollars, they should follow the law just like everyone else. Totally understand the religous freedom part of their argument. However, the state dollars nullify that point. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:34 pm: - I’m more than a little squeamish about forcing anyone to violate their religious principles. - Me too, which is why I think it’s great that the Catholic Charities can continue providing adoption services as they see fit as long as they’re paying for all of it. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:36 pm: wordslinger, Your anecdote is compelling, and it shows there are any number of agencies that place children with couples in alternate arrangements. What compelling interest is served by stopping Catholic Charities from placing children (I would bet they are the most prolific among non-governmental agencies in placing children in suitable environments) other than to satisfy the feelings of a select group of individuals. If Catholic Charities were the only game in town, there might be an issue that needs to be addressed. But by your own admission, there are plenty of alternatives for non-traditional couples. There is no harm to the public interest, and arguably a great public service is being done, by allowing Catholic Charities to continue its mission without government interference. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:41 pm: –What compelling interest is served by stopping Catholic Charities from placing children (I would bet they are the most prolific among non-governmental agencies in placing children in suitable environments) other than to satisfy the feelings of a select group of individuals– The “compelling interest” is following the law. The “select group of individuals” are the people of Illinois. And no one is stopping them from doing anything on their own dime. - dave - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:41 pm: by allowing Catholic Charities to continue its mission without government interference. Your comments are getting crazier and crazier. If Catholic Charities doesn’t want “government interference,” then they should probably not take government money. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:42 pm: Wordslinger - You never heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Of course its against Catholic principles!! The issue is not whether they have the right to refuse to serve gay/lesbians because of religious beliefs. The issue is accepting state/federal money and expecting not to have to comply with state/federal law. The solution is simple - stop taking state $$. Let the state figure out who to contract with that is capable of such an enormous program and won’t have any religious scruples. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:46 pm: The bottom line is they can’t operate without the state funds. Several million dollars for their contracts is nothing to sneeze at. Which is why they are trying to go the other route by suing the State. They also can’t go the private adoption route because DCFS Licensing standards for adoption agencies are the same. - Esquire - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:50 pm: @wordslinger: So, if the law is changed in a future legislative session, by a court decision, or as a result of a referendum, you would be absolutely fine with Catholic Charities adhering to their religious principles? Never knew you were such a positivist. Does the new Illinois law trump the Constitutions of the USA and Illinois which guarantee religious freedom? This is a much more complicated controversy then some of the comments acknowledge. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:55 pm: - Of course its against Catholic principles! - I’m guessing every family that Catholic Charities has ever provided adoption services for has engaged in behavior that is against Catholic principles. You disagree? I haven’t been to church for a while, but I don’t remember learning that some sins don’t matter while others do. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:55 pm: I would prefer catholic charities serve everybody, but I see no problem if they for religious reasons do not. We allow pharmacies and doctors to deny non emergency medical care base don their religious beleifs. I would point out that the same sex couples arenot being locked out of adoption by catholic charities and others seem to imply; those couples can still proceed through DCFS for those services. Most folks dont like to use DCFS for a number of reasons, prefering the religious organizations which also handle foster kids. Rich while they are State subsidized, they also provide suppport and items which do not come from the State. It would be great if smone had such a ueful nonsectarian program for those in need, but such places are few and far between. Word consider his, you are critizing the catholic chruch harshely for not following your viewpoint, but isnt the whole idea behind a free socety that they havethe right to have difernet, or, in your opinion, wrong beliefs? if we reuqire everyone to holdthe same beleif system in order to provide social services, then we will have no one providing social services. - Marty - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:55 pm: The AG’s letter is clear that this has nothing to do with them receiving state funds, this is an exercise of the police power in connection with alleged civil rights discrimination. If they didn’t receive any State funds (and I’m taking your word that they do), the AG letter and the issue would be exactly the same. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:56 pm: - Does the new Illinois law trump the Constitutions of the USA and Illinois which guarantee religious freedom? - The whole idea behind keeping public money from being used for religious purposes is to protect religious freedom. - dave - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:58 pm: Does the new Illinois law trump the Constitutions of the USA and Illinois which guarantee religious freedom? This is a much more complicated controversy then some of the comments acknowledge. The US Constitution does not guarantee that an entity can get whatever contract that they want. You and I have religious freedom. We do not have the freedom to take state money and do whatever we want with it. - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:59 pm: Another black eye for my former church…they are so judgemental, except when having to look into their own dirty laundry…how very sad that people who wish to be parents to kids who need them are being kept apart… - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 1:59 pm: I’m fine with Catholic Charities discriminating. I’m fine with the Boy Scouts discriminating. I just don’t want them to have any tax money to use to do so. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:00 pm: So the interest and the feelings of some portion of the populace trumps the interests of the defenseless children who would otherwise not be placed, or placed at a much higher costs to the taxpayers (no doubt Catholic Charities uses its own funds in addition to the state’s) except for the efforts of Catholic Charities. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:00 pm: –Word consider his, you are critizing the catholic chruch harshely for not following your viewpoint, but isnt the whole idea behind a free socety that they havethe right to have difernet, or, in your opinion, wrong beliefs?– They want state money, but they don’t want to follow the law. I can’t do that; you can’t do that. Their faith has nothing to do with it. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:05 pm: - So the interest and the feelings of some portion of the populace trumps the interests of the defenseless children who would otherwise not be placed - Sheesh, you talk about Quinn being hyperbolic, I think you might have a plank in your eye. I thought you were against some groups being able to skirt the law. Are the Catholics part of the elites now? - JL - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:05 pm: Rich, you’re playing all the hits today. I think this is just another example of the over politicization of the Catholic Church. If you get state funds, you have to abide by the laws tied to those funds, no one is forcing CC to take the money. I just hope CC doesn’t jeopardize the other great work that they do by becoming overly political. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:08 pm: ===Rich, you’re playing all the hits today.=== lol I ain’t playing anything. It’s already being played, I’m just posting. - Not a Newcomer - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:15 pm: Catholic Charities are allowed to discriminate already, they just can’t use taxpayer funds to do it under the new law. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:16 pm: === Everybody knew that Catholic Charities already “discriminated” based on marital status and sexual orientation. That’s been a longstanding practice. But race?=== Catholic Charities of Springfield has changed their website since I first pointed it out — and since the AG requested the information, but until recently their webpage stated that “infant” adoptions were only available to married couples who had been attempting to have children unsuccessfully and had no more than one child already. While adoptions of minority children, which Catholic Charities refers to as “Special needs”, were open to both single individuals and married couples. I’ll dig up the text for you. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:22 pm: So the pressure becomes: if we cannot provide the services according to our beliefs, we’ll stop the services and we are one of the few providers. The counter point being: If you get state funding, you have to follow the state funding guidelines or do not take the money. Both sides have decent arguments and some history. Laws and rules change. Conflicts like this are inevitable. In the end, if you want the funding you have to decide is it worth the price. Can CC continue adapt to no state dollars? - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:22 pm: So it is okay for Jacobs to skirt the law and assault another person because he got called out in a conflict of interest, but it is not okay for Catholic Charities to skirt the law and try to place the most vulnerable children while holding true to their religious beliefs. Gotcha. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:24 pm: Oh, by the way, Jacobs was receiving state money when he assaulted another individual, so this can’t be about the money… - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:27 pm: Cincy, somehow you left Lee Harvey Oswald and the Freemasons out of your Universal Conspiracy Theory. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:28 pm: Here’s what Catholic Charities website said as of 4/13: Infant Adoption Program * Services to adoptive families include orientation on adoption, counseling, education on adoption issues, adoption home study and foster family home licensing services, support, information and referral. * Catholic Charities offers adoptive services for minority infants. These services are available to couples who have been married for a minimum of two years and also to single applicants. * Adoption services for Caucasian infants are available to married couples experiencing infertility who have been married for a minimum of two years and have no more than one child. There is often a waiting list for this program and at times we are unable to accept new names. * Fees charged within the Infant Adoption Program are based on a home study fee and a percentage of the applicant’s annual income. * For further eligibility criteria or information, please call Laura Ratsch, Adoption Program Coordinator, at (217) 523-9201, ext. 329 or e-mail at ratsch@cc.dio.org. Special Needs Adoption Program * Finding a home for older children, sibling groups, children with special needs, children who have been victims of abuse and neglect, and for those of a minority race can be difficult. Catholic Charities strives to find and prepare families for these children. * Special Needs Adoption is open to married couples and single applicants, and to those who may or may not have other children. * Adoption assistance is often available for these adoptions. * Services include orientation on adoption, counseling, education on adoption issues, adoption home study, foster family home licensing, support, information and referral. * For further information, please call your local Catholic Charities Area Office. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:29 pm: Word, The problem with your argument is that Catholic Charities is, arguably, following the law. See above: “The Thomas More Society, which is handling the case, recently claimed that state law already protects Catholic Charities…” This seems to be the basis for their suit. They believe they are following the law, and they sought an injunction because they feel they are following the law. My point? The legal process will resolve this issue. The judges will decide whether they are following the law or not. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:38 pm: - So it is okay for Jacobs to skirt the law - Jacobs didn’t skirt the law, the law decided the incident wasn’t worthy of charges. - dirk - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:41 pm: I like the First Amendment, just not for Catholics. I disagree with them. I dont care how much good work they do for children, I want them to lose, I want them to capitulate. I dont care that the State funds their efforts because they are so much more efficient and effective than any state agency that tries to do what they are doing. I dont care. I want my personal beliefs ratified and crammed down the throats of those that disagree with me. I am smart, they are dumb. My First Amendment rights should be zealously guarded, their’s should be spit on. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:48 pm: === “Child welfare advocates know it is in the best interest of Illinois children for Catholic Charities to stay in this business,” said Steven Roach, Executive Director for Catholic Charities in the Springfield Diocese. === I think you’ll find that very few child welfare advocates support either Catholic Charities discrimination against same sex couples or their proposed cover story. 1. The measure for whether or not to place a child with a foster family or an adoptive family is the child’s best interest, which is independent of religious belief. 2. No sane person would argue that a child who has been the victim of abuse or neglect is better off 1) remaining in their home, 2) being placed in a group home than they are being placed with a gay foster parent — solely because that person is gay — and whether that person is single, cohabitating or married. 3. No sane person can argue that a child who has been the victim of abuse or neglect is better off growing up with no legal parents than they are having two dads or two moms. CC’s “We don’t discriminate against gays, we discriminate against unmarried couples” cover story is fascinating. 1) Under Illinois law, civil unions couples must be treated as married couples for legal purposes, including eligibility to provide foster services or seek adoption. 2) Buying into the “Catholics don’t recognize civil unions” argument means you’d also have to extend to CC the authority to discriminate against anyone not married in a Catholic Church, since those are the only marriages the church officially recognizes. 3) Most of the time, the best foster care or adoption circumstance for a child is to be placed with a relative, most often that’s a grandparent. But there are many financial and social reasons that older Americans choose to cohabitate or not remarry…like so they don’t lose retirement benefits or health care. CC’s stated policy would mean a child could not be placed with a grandmother who has a live-in “boyfriend.” That’s a ridiculous edict, even by Catholic standards. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 2:56 pm: Gotta wonswe if they allow other siner who have been married to adopt —- any divorcees want to speak up? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:00 pm: BTW, I’m tired of seeing this lazy line in reporting by the Tribune: “Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago ended its foster and adoption services in 2007 when it lost insurance coverage.” no, No, NO! Catholic Charities of Chicago was forced out of ALL child services because no one in their right mind would issue them a liability insurance policy because of the rampant negligence by their agency, included the attempted cover-up of a child’s death. - Jeremiah - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:09 pm: Everyone keeps noting that Catholic Charities gets state money. Well, yes, because they do a job efficiently that the state has problems with. I see no real problem here. I would prefer that adoptions remain with traditionally married couples or singles. But I live in a free country and that is my RELIGIOUS belief, so I can live with the people’s representatives choosing to do it another way. What I cannot live with is the idea that now that it is legal, my Church must be forced to violate its religious tenets or children must be left in the streets. Hey, gay activists, here’s an idea…why don’t you celebrate your legislative victory by setting up your own effective agencies for placement instead of trying to impose your beliefs on the Catholic Church? Or do you just want the public battles without actually having to do the heavy lifting of performing real services? - Deep South - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:12 pm: ===So the interest and the feelings of some portion of the populace trumps the interests of the defenseless children who would otherwise not be placed, or placed at a much higher costs to the taxpayers (no doubt Catholic Charities uses its own funds in addition to the state’s) except for the efforts of Catholic Charities. === Cincy, I though you were a free market guy. I would expect you to be asking why does this group need government money in the first place. This is an issue that should be worked out in a free market…government interference only makes things worse….right? - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:24 pm: Deept South @3:21pm =This is an issue that should be worked out in a free market…= Bizarre statement. Please explain what you mean by that. A free market for adoptions? Truly disturbing statement. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:26 pm: Okay, Deep South, let’s get the government altogether out of placing these children, and save the money. I can buy into that, and let’s then leave adoption to private entities and private donation. BUT, if the government is doing this work anyway, why not allow Catholic Charities to do it, especially since they commingle their dollars, stretching the taxpayer funding, and providing the service more efficiently than the government. - Kyle Hillman - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:27 pm: While Catholic Charities does commendable work in our communities, the bottom line is that the state shouldn’t be funding organizations who do not believe in fundamental fairness and equality. They have every right to believe whatever doctrine they choose (no matter how flawed I think it is), they do not have the right to discriminate with state funds. As Frank Vonch said they can no longer contract with the state. This isn’t about religious freedoms - this lawsuit is about the roughly 3.5 million dollars the business of Catholic Charities will no longer CONTRACT out. - Shalador - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:38 pm: =What I cannot live with is the idea that now that it is legal, my Church must be forced to violate its religious tenets or children must be left in the streets.= And therein lies the problem with breaching the church/state wall, if you don’t want government in your religion, then you can’t have religion in your government. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:39 pm: Kyle, “This isn’t about religious freedoms - this lawsuit is about the roughly 3.5 million dollars the business of Catholic Charities will no longer CONTRACT out.” It’s about $3.5M worth of placement for children that won’t be placed in suitable homes, and about adults whose rights (or feelings) trump those of the children being placed. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:40 pm: Shalafor, And that debate has been going on since 1777. Jefferson’s feelings in the matter were a bit less hardline than Madison’s (who is more closely aligned to your point of view). - ChicagoR - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:41 pm: “here’s an idea…why don’t you celebrate your legislative victory by setting up your own effective agencies for placement instead of trying to impose your beliefs on the Catholic Church? ” That’s as convincing an argument as telling black people in the 60s that they should just go set up their own lunch counters. - Aldyth - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:52 pm: Catholic Charities should not be given an exemption from following the laws of the state of Illinois. Comply or the funding should go to another organization that is willing to be non-discriminatory. - Liberty First - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:54 pm: How ironic this all is when you read the Illinois constitution…. Section 3. Religious Freedom The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 3:59 pm: @cincy- those contracts will quickly be swept up by other agencies. Lest we forget, this story first broke when an agency refused to place a gay homeless teen with gay foster parents. - Gallery Sitter - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:11 pm: Isn’t it great to see folks using the State to attack the Church. Stay classy Illinois. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:12 pm: GS, who is attacking the church? - Justice - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:28 pm: Behind Curtain #1: How dare gay and lesbian couples care for children. Do they have no shame?? Behind Curtain #2: What a blessing it is for a child to be given a home with loving and caring parents instead of being placed in homes where they may well lose out on the many joys of life. I’ll take curtain #2 Bob for a happier life! - Wensicia - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:29 pm: CC won’t place children with couples they refuse to recognize, more or less saying they’re unfit to be parents based on their relationships or unions? In my opinion, this proves CC is unfit to deliver these specific services. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:39 pm: Again, Gallery Sitter, please point to a blatantly anti Catholic Church post. I’ve been a bit distracted with work and other posts today, so I may have missed it. If you can’t, then don’t bother coming back. - Gallery Sitter - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:41 pm: “GS, who is attacking the church?” Rich, I’m sorry for posting that. I’ve sat thinking of a long detailed response but to what end? We’re not going to solve the worlds problems on a message board. It’s annoying, if not frustrating, that in this day of hyper political correctness that Catholics seem to be one of the few targets who are still considered fair game. Frustration is not a great reason to enter a debate, and I certainly don’t want to continue squabbling about it. I regret posting that earlier. My apologies to all. - Shalador - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 4:49 pm: Cincinnatus—Didn’t intend to come across as hard-core, but it only seems logical to separate the two entities. If we are all free to worship or not as we please, then it also seems to be inviting needless trouble to expect that just a “little” religion in gov’t. would be OK, and vice-versa. Also did not mean for this to go OT. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 5:15 pm: According to everything I’ve read, there is no shortage of private child welfare organization who can handle these adoptions if CC gets out in northern IL. The only possible area where that might not be the case is in southern IL, but DCFS has said it’s capable of handling the cases. Remember, thanks to an emphasis on placement, the huge numbers of foster children from the 90s when the state first invited religious orgs in, are no more. I think Catholic Charities should consider why they want to continue being a state contractor. - Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, Jun 7, 11 @ 7:06 pm: Anyone who has even tangentially worked in the world of adoption knows that this is MUCH bigger than whether or not these agencies take state dollars. Personally, I have seen the amount of work done by both Catholic Charities and Lutheran Children’s Services. You can disagree with their faith, but if you force an all or nothing policy that’s against their faith, kids needing aadoption Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.