The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles are at opposite ends of the spectrum over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.The Roman Catholic Church's position is clear and unequivocal - no. Their position is consistent with their other view that homosexuality is intrinsically "disordered". They also have a thumbs down policy on bisexuality, transgendered behavior and, we may safely assume, bestiality as well.
Enter Holy Family Adoption Services, which provides adoption, foster care, and family support services for infants and toddlers who are often born into very high-risk situations and require placement into a loving home. They have been helping these children whose mothers have been victimized themselves by family violence, or who suffer from addiction, or who are just ill-prepared for motherhood since 1949.
Noble work indeed. They have been funded all that time by the LA Archdiocese with the full support of bishops and archbishops of that diocese until 2007.
In that year, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles made it clear that Holy Family would have to stop placing children with same-sex couples. If they persisted, The Catholic Archdiocese said it would withdraw its support. Holy Family persisted. So the Archdiocese withdrew its support, as did most Catholic donors. It was a matter of principle.
The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize same sex marriage. Even divorce requires a church recognized annulment, so one can understand Rome's position. They are not about to compromise.
Holy Family Adoption Services' board of directors decided that were not going to obey the directive from their spiritual bosses and the church that has been supporting them for more than 60 years.
Enter Bishop J. Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angles, a man who has taken bombast to levels never dreamed of in ecclesiastical history. His latest act was to successfully push for an avowed lesbian to the episcopacy against the express wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Bruno, who doesn't like anyone telling him what to do, resisted.
He raised the middle finger to the ABC and said, in so many words, stay out of our internal affairs.
In short, he will never allow Canterbury or those myopic, fundamentalist, arrogant Global South Anglicans (who do know how to make churches grow, incidentally) dictate to him how to Episcopalians should live thier lives, who one can go to bed with whom, or who can be ordained.
(Note: Whenever liberal Episcopalians talk about sexual behavior, words like "generous orthodoxy", "inclusivity" and "static" come into play.)
When the revisionist bishop learned of Holy Family's self-invoked fate, he invited the organization to be housed under the auspices of his church.
Bruno brought the group under Episcopal auspices and worked on Robert K. Ross, President and CEO of The California Endowment, a donor agency, to donate $50,000. He asked other people and agencies to do the same.
Bruno linked the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church and their withdrawal of funds to Holy Family to scapegoating, intolerance, and even hate, citing specifically Arizona's anti-immigration legislation and California's Prop. 8.
The Huffington Post has naturally billed this as a "courageous" act by Bruno and excoriated the Roman Catholic Church for its narrowness, upholding the "moral courage" of the board of directors of Holy Family Adoption Services and Bishop Jon Bruno.
What is so courageous about supporting and sanctifying sexual sin?
If the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed most of America's evangelicals believe that such "marital" arrangements are not in accord with Holy Scripture, why should they fund them?
If they fervently believe that a child raised by two daddies or two mummies is not in accord with nature, history or Holy Scripture, why should they put their hard earned dollars to work there?
It's a bit like asking the Boy Scout movement (known for its high view of moral behavior) to embrace sodomy and then wonder why a Boy Scout leader is brought up on charges when he is accused of abusing his leadership by seducing a young scout.
The very fact that Prop 8 is breathing down legislators' throats and that the majority of Californians have not given their approval to same-sex marriages, one might think this would cause the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles to think about what they are doing. Ya think?
Anything that encourages biblical sexual morality, chastity, or even celibacy (God forbid), is laughed at, scorned and derided by the deep thinkers in that diocese (and most of The Episcopal Church) these days.
They number among their tribe lesbian Integrity leader Susan Russell, not to mention whole parishes in that diocese who self-identify as pansexual (read inclusive) and for whom the driving force of their lives, ministry and teaching is brokering pansexuality into the Episcopal Church.
Jesus gets less publicity these days in Episcopal churches than Gene Robinson who is now ably assisted by Mary Glasspool in spreading the dystopian word.
Science, myths and same-sex parenting
In his book, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic's Guide to Defending Marriage, Dale O'Leary's research shows that children do best when raised by a mother and father.
What is best for the children, he asks? The legal battles over marriage frequently revolve around this very question. Gay activists argue that many same-sex couples already have children, and these children need the protections afforded by legal recognition of their relationship.
To support this line of argument, they present the courts with numerous studies claiming to prove that children raised by persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are just as happy, healthy, and academically successful as children raised by their married biological parents.
However, in her book Children as Trophies? European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 published studies on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behavior, confused gender roles, and increased likelihood of serious psychological problems, later in life.
Furthermore, a French parliamentary report on the rights of children decried the "flagrant lack of objectivity" in much of the pro-gay research in this area, and concluded with the warning that "we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?"
When spouses "fall in love" with their children, it doesn't diminish their love for the other spouse, but enriches it. Same-sex couples may seek children hoping they will provide this same effect, but will more often find them an obstacle to and a competitor for affection, writes O'Leary.
Boys in woman space
Any same-sex parenting scenario will be "different" from ordinary families, with consequent effects on children, but as evidence suggests, none more so than two women raising boys.
Many women with Same Sex Attractions (SSA) have extremely negative attitudes toward men. Some are still very angry with their fathers, and that antagonism carries over to males in general. Some extend their hostility to masculinity itself, and frown on traditional boyish pursuits. It's common for same-sex parents to discourage play with gender-typing toys and games, but women seem to do it more thoroughly than men.
O'Leary says that a fatherless boy living among women who are deeply hostile to masculinity itself will find it difficult to develop a healthy masculine identity. The book Lesbians Raising Sons -- a collection of essays by lesbian mothers of boys -- reveals numerous cases of boys who, by their mother's admission, exhibit symptoms of gender identity disorder. One mother defends her adopted son's cross-gender behavior and castigates society for not accommodating him.
Lesbians raising boys think they can fully compensate for the absence of a father -- that fatherlessness is not a problem unless an oppressive society makes it one. But the children do not see it that way: "Parents reported a number of instances where children age four and older would ask about their father. Children would ask someone to be their daddy, ask where their father was, or express the wish to have a father. They would make up their own answers, such as their father was dead, or someone was in fact their father."
Can the "second mommy" compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home -- not just a second person.
Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather.
Even gay-affirming therapists are noting the problem. In an article entitled, "A Boy and Two Mothers", Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two "mothers" were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.
Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way.
Doesn't everyone have a right to children?
Persons with SSA are human beings. It is natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanted to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.
But children are not trophies, or a way to meet one's personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. People are not a means to an end; they are meant to be loved for their own sake.
Therefore no one has a "right" to a child. It is children who have the rights. When circumstances separate a child from one or both biological parents, adults should try to create a situation for him that is as normal as possible.
No matter how honorable the intention, no one has the right to compound the tragedy of separation from biological parents by subjecting a child to another sub-optimal situation.
Activists may claim that couples with SSA are "rescuing" children by adopting them out of poverty or other hard circumstances.
Although laudable, this intent does not negate the real problems caused by same-sex parenting: problems deeper and longer-lasting than material deprivation.
This argument also loses force when you consider the many roadblocks to adoption faced by stable, well-to-do married couples. Same-sex adoption doesn't provide more homes for needy children -- it just keeps those children away from married couples who would otherwise adopt them.
Child Abuse
When AID and surrogacy are used to create babies for same-sex couples, these children not being "rescued" from anything, instead they are being intentionally conceived to be placed in suboptimal situations. This is child abuse, writes O'Leary.
As more persons with SSA acquire children, society will increasingly be pressured to ignore the problems caused by same-sex parenting -- just as it ignores the problems caused by divorce -- and join in the pretence that that having two mommies is just the same as having a mommy and a daddy.
But no matter how many people praise "family diversity," children being raised by parents with SSA will always know that it's not the same, and someday they will resent how their needs have been sacrificed for the sake of a social experiment.
In a sad irony, the more that cultural elites insist that there is nothing wrong with their situation, the more these children will feel guilty about resenting it, and this guilt will lead them to conclude that there must be something wrong with them.
In its defense, the Roman Catholic Church had every right not to continue funding Holy Family.
For them to do so would have been unholy defying everything they believe.
To which, both evangelicals of all denominations and Mormons would say a hearty "Amen."
SIC: VO