Who’s going to take care of all those children?”

Certainly not the state. Every time we hear about the state’s foster care failing, it’s always accompanied by complaints that the Department of Children’s/Families’/Youth Services is overworked and underfunded. Each case worker will have way more cases to deal with than the state-mandated max, and they don’t usually last very long, except by sheer force of will. The Church is just trying to help out the children by finding them homes, and the state by relieving some of its burden, but that’s not good enough unless the state can force the Church to bow to its will. Maybe Illinois’ DCFS will think of what’s best for the children in this case- allowing every effort to be made for them to find homes.

The Catholic Church has been the caretaker of the sick, abandoned, homeless, orphaned, and widowed for centuries.  Unfortunately, societies have come up with the idea that the state can somehow do a better job of running hospitals and health care, raising children, and sheltering the homeless.  I think one walk down a street in any inner city will show the results of this terrible plan.  Allow the Churches and the citizens in those Churches to take care of the people and leave the State to take care of the roads and bridges (which are chock full of cracks and potholes so maybe if they were concentrating on doing one thing well rather than many things poorly, that problem would be solved too).

I’m not Catholic, but I am (recently-confirmed) Episcopal. So, I read this, and I put the little c on the catholic.  I know you guys do a lot more than anyone else, but as an Episcopal with a really checkered denominational history, I see others doing some as well.  But yes. I agree. The church should be the one to take care of the orphans, the widows and the poor.  That’s what He called St. Stephen and the others for anyway. :)

The one part of this issue that I don’t really understand is the whole part about funding.  Is the contract just so that Catholic Charities is allowed to handle the placement of children, does the state pay them a certain stipend for doing this, or does Catholic Charities actually need money from the state to afford the costs of the services??  That’s the only semi-legitimate beef that I guess some of the naysayers might have. 

But I think you are absolutely correct that a lot of people are so caught up in their ideology of “fairness” that they don’t think about the reality of what enacting their ideology entails…like the slaughter of innocent babies or the placement of already stressed kids and then putting them in the most statistically unstable (and dangerous) situation—unmarried, non-biological parents.

I realize that this is a bit beside the point of the article (with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way) but the “Pro-lifers only care about babies before they’re born!!” argument drives me up the wall.  I can’t think of a single pro-lifer I know who wouldn’t jump at the chance to adopt at least one, more like several, babies if women would carry them to term instead of aborting them.  And it’s like people who say that don’t know that there are thousands and thousands of people on waiting lists to adopt.

If the government was charity it would be indicted for fraud.

Well put. The judge’s ruling is not surprising. This way the state of Illinois gets in the news for being all nice and liberal, stopping mean old Catholic Charities from being judgmental, but gets to keep the Church doing the hard work in the end.

@Barbara C - yes, the state usually does give some funding to organizations that help them with social services.  A not-for-profit adoption agency would likely also get state funding.  Depending on the services, some Catholic schools get state funding as well.

When you look at the federal or state budget - the money doesn’t always or even all the time stay within government services, but gets sent to various organizations.  For instance, a lot of university medical research is funded by the government.  Similarly, Catholic Charities and other organizations (there are non-Catholic adoption/social service organizations) that receive a lot of funding from the state.  With the number of religious that used to run these organizations, Catholic Charities could usually do it cheaper than any other organization that had to pay its employees. 

Its this situation and others that the state is now using to push their social engineering agenda.  For instance, the federal funds for organizations in Africa that were fighting AIDS has been cut for any organization that was promoting abstinence.  Under previous administrations, both ‘kinds’ of approaches (BC & Abstinence) were getting funding because they both claimed some level of success.  Not under this administration.

And no one is forced to use Catholic Charities!!

I heard a story once about how the city government of Philadelphia tried to coerce the Catholic schools into going co-ed or something along those lines.  The Cardinal said that he would close the schools in that case.  The public school couldn’t handle the tens of thousands of kids who would be showing up the next week (even the transportation issues for that many kids)- and so the city abandoned the plan.  It happens all time. State tries to force the Church to not have principles, the Church says, okay - you do it then, and the State backs down.

I drive a huge van thanks to my 5 children.  It has a big honking bumper sticker on the back that reads “abortion stops a beating heart”.  You can imagine the looks that stirs up in CT!!!  So when I get accosted with the “are you going to take my unwanted baby”, I lead them over to the passenger side of the van, open it up and show them the extra space AND car seat waiting for their baby.  It drives home my point.  I will take your baby, because I want your baby, and I’m prepared to take your baby TODAY!!!

Have grown up in, and having endured living in, Illinois a couple of times in my life, I can bring a gnarled insight here.
Nothing…NOTHING in Illinois politics happens in a vacuum. The current Governor, Pat Quinn, is a “Catholic” (a divorced one, by the way, but who hasn’t remarried) but he is an Illinois politician, first and foremost. Like most Illinois politicians, he has not had a real-world job. He has been at the public trough his entire “career”.
The mililant gay community is, like many other mulitant and well formed groups, well-funded and well-schooled in hardball politics. They, like our esteemed President (also a product of the political machine) reward their friends and punish their enemies. The filth extends to the uber-local level: a policial operative gets the garbage hauling contract, no matter their bid may be well above another qualified company with less “clout”. And so it goes, up the slime ladder to the halls of the state capitol in Springfield, not to mention that den of iniquity, City Hall in Chicago.
For acceding to the militant and loud, raucous voices, and I’d bet, armed with plenty of campaign funds for the next election, Quinn did what any well-informed Illinoisan knew he would do, reward his friends, a quid pro quo.It could have been militant vegetarians; if they had the political clout and campaign cash, sure, I hereby order hummus at all State of Illinois cafeterias.
And, sadly, most Catholics in Illinois care about few things other than: will my garbage be picked up, and will my streets be plowed after a snowstorm. That thinking has been pervasive, sad, and maddening, given that only one governor in the last seven hasn’t been sent to federal prison on one charge or another. But, at least in the view of one person who feels like burning his clothing after coming home from visiting Illinois, that’s the way it is.
You are also being too generous in speculating on the judge’s modus operandi here. He may actually be one of those rarte individuals who acts on the principle of justice, as opposed to the informal Illinois code:“Ube Es Mea” Where’s Mine??

What I find particularly disturbing is they are now putting homosexuality on the same level as religion.

Simcha, you make an excellent point.  I have always believed that if the government would get out of the way regular people could really make a difference in other peoples lives.  The government does a horrible job of taking care of people, so they need to let the church do it.

Erika Evans wrote “I can’t think of a single pro-lifer I know who wouldn’t jump at the chance to adopt at least one, more like several, babies if women would carry them to term instead of aborting them”. 

There are 107,000 of children already born waiting to be adopted.

“And it’s like people who say that don’t know that there are thousands and thousands of people on waiting lists to adopt.”

The problem is that those on the waiting list are looking for healthy, white, newborns.  So if any of your pro-life friends are looking for children to adopt there are quite a few waiting.

My husband and I adopted one unwanted, abused/neglected older child, tried to adopt two others, and are raising one of our grandchildren who was definitely neglected and possibly abused (too young at the time to report).  Not tooting my own horn, but I’d love for someone to ask me that sometime.

@mrsceecee—I’m well aware of that fact—that many would-be adoptive parents want healthy newborns that look like they look (just like most biological parents do, BTW).  However, many couldn’t care less what color the baby is and are just as willing to handle medical issues in an adopted child as they would be in an biological child.  I was blessed with the opportunity to adopt my son, who is a different race than the rest of the family and who was born with a potentially catastrophic medical diagnosis (so far it looks like he’s healthy, though, praise God).  The point was that we pro-lifers are often accused of having no interest in children after they were born and only care about oppressing women by making them carry the children grown inside them—which couldn’t be further from the truth.  Those babies are desperately wanted if they would only be allowed to live.

You mentioned the children waiting to be adopted. According to my research and experience, in most cases those children are in sibling groups of 3,4,5; or are physically or mentally handicapped; or who are so severely damaged by abuse that they pose a danger to other children in the potential adoptive family.  I do not judge any pro-lifer who is not equipped to give those children homes in which they can grow and thrive and I don’t think anyone else should either.

@Erika Evans - there are thousands of people on waiting lists to adopt white, non drug exposed infants, but that’s simply not the case for African American children.    In many, many parts of the US, there is a deep need for couples who are open to adopting AA infants, particularly those with some risky in utero exposure.   

A dirty secret in our country is that it’s extremely difficult to find adoptive homes for African American boys.    I’m not trying to get into a debate or change the topic here, I’m just using this opportunity to invite the readers here who believe they are open to an adoption of an AA child, in particular a boy, to please prayerfully consider it.

Mike, you pretty much summed it up! Except I disagree with your statement about Catholics not caring.  A lot of us do, a lot of us vote, but we can only do so much. I live in Illinois (our town used to be known as “Little Chicago”) full-time, with my husband and 8 kids. Illinois politics have always been our dirty little secret.  Unfortunately, it became everybody’s problem when Obama was elected.  He cut his teeth in Chicago and Springfield.  He didn’t learn manners or ethics there, that’s for sure.  I am interested to see what happens to Catholic Charities.  I was stunned and surprised that they won the first round in court. Very surprised.  Okay, maybe I am not interested is seeing what happens.  Our politicians out and out assault on religious liberty is fully on display with the title of the law that started the whole problem.  “The Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Unions Act.” Right. They just get bolder and bolder all the time.  Maybe we’ll move across the river to Missouri.  Sigh.

On the non-white children needing adopting, from what I’ve heard, part of the problem isn’t finding people willing to take them.  The problem often is the “children welfare professionals” who don’t like whites adopt black children.  They apparently believe that it is better for a black child to suffer in public care than for them to be in a good home with white adoptive parents.

@Paul - that was certainly the case for many years and to some extent it still is among social service agencies.  Even as late as the 1990’s Philadelphia SW’s made the conscious and vocal choice to keep Black children out of White homes.

But that is not nearly the problem it once was and in cases of domestic infant adoption where a birth mother voluntarily chooses to terminate her rights to her child, there are often NO waiting couples willing to have their profile shown to a Black mother.    And these are the unborn children who are most at risk of being lost to abortion - these mothers are trying to do the right thing by their child - they have accepted that they lack the proper resources and parenting skills and are voluntarily allowing another family to raise their baby.

Many (if not most I have no idea) of the babies lost to abortion likely come from families who could raise the child and do it quite well if only that child is given a chance to take his first breath.    But if a pregnant Black woman who has lots of negative external issues in her life cannot find a couple of any race to raise her unborn child it does send her a message that her child’s life may not be worth saving.

I hate that argument. Just because I can’t be a foster parent at this stage in our lives doesn’t mean I can’t be pro-life. Though, yes, if a woman asked me to take her baby or she was going to abort it, of course I would take in the child and have faith that God would help us work it out.

Secondly, every single crisis pregnancy center I’ve ever seen has help available for after the baby is born. Most stock diapers, wipes, clothing, are associated with doctors and lawyers who will donate their services and also refer clients who are interested to adoptive services. There are many associated with group homes that offer mothers a place to learn skills to enter the workforce as well as teach them basic budgeting, tax filing and parenting skills. These things are places that are supported with time and talent and very little money. These are real people with busy, hectic, dramatic lives that take time to step outside their own naval gazing in order to better the life of children born to ill-equipped young ladies. They may not take these babies into their homes, but they give the mother of the child the opportunity to learn how to parent her own child, own her choices and take control of her own life. And that is far better than any state-run program ever imagined.

the scariest words in the english language are, “i’m from the government and i’m here to help you.”

I think the most “prolife adoption move” I’ve read about has been adopting both the mother and the baby…The mother becomes part of a stable environment while learning to care for her child, and the child is supported in a loving home with loving parents.  From the few articles I’ve read on it, it works well…

As long as the government (any level) is able to use taxpayer funding for anything outside of basic services we will have this problem.  Get the government out of social programs and let the private organizations handle them.  Our Church would excel with this responsibility.

“the scariest words in the english language are, “i’m from the government and i’m here to help you.””

Many of you write comments about the government should not be about helping people and getting involved in people’s lives.  Yet many accept government assistance in the form of food stamps, WIC, medicaid or welfare?  Many use the government for long term assistance. I am going to make an educated guess and say that it is possible that the government spends more money on the poor than the Catholic Church does if you add up all the forms of assistance.  The Catholic Church is not providing this degree of assistance to those in need and it is expensive assistance often given to people who make choices that keep them relying on the government.  So in one way you want the government out of your life and in other ways you want the government in.

I think everything that Catholic Church does to serve those in need is great but aren’t there other non-government agencies also helping to place these children?  Perhaps other groups who do not hold the same beliefs as we do?

Sharon, come on over. We rubes forced Democrat Gov Jay Nixon to sign a tough abortion bill,as he knew he’d waste political capital fighting the bill in a Legislature that can easily override a veto. His supporters are fuming..heh heh.

Regarding abortion, I don’t see how not wanting to see someone murdered obligates you to take care of them for the rest of their lives.  If I expressed my disapproval of a murder that was about to take place and the victim was released upon my wishes, would I then be obliged to provide for them?  I’m not trying to say that we don’t have a duty to the helpless and the victims, but the first duty is making sure they aren’t killed.
——-
Catholic Charities isn’t involved in foster care to make gays feel good about themselves, and the state shouldn’t be either.  They should be helping children and nothing more.  If the state has a different opinion than Catholic Charities, then it must do as it sees fit.  But to impose those opinions on an institution that is helping children is just short sighted, agenda driven stupidity.

I lived in Chicago/Springfield for 4 long years!  Everytime I go back to visit family, I come home feeling depressed .  They say they are Catholic and still go to church occasionally, but their adoration of Barack Hussein Obama is more than I can stomach.  Can’t take much more of the hypocrisy!!!  Mary, Queen of Peace, pray for us!

Thank you, Simcha for another wonderful article. May God keep you in His Arms and may you continue to stay in His Arms always. Now if we can only wake up our Bishops from their slumber to lead us into the gates of Heaven instead of someplace else.  +JMJ+

I just gotta say… talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!!

I’m not one for cliches, but that’s a little too accurate.

As it stands, the attitude of the state in this matter seems quite unscientific.

No one knows yet whether two moms or two dads is a good thing or a bad thing, or how much of a good or bad think it is. What is the effect of two moms, or two dads, versus a mom and a dad?

Studies need to be done about this. This means adoption to gay couples must be allowed, but it need not be allowed everywhere. Just enough to make it possible for motivated gay couples to adopt. Then observe the children of a statistically significant group of gay parents, throughout their lives. Once they reach 16-18 (this will be a 20 year study, ideally), the data can be analyzed.

For the three possible outcomes (assuming male-only couples and female-only couples are equivalent; maybe it will be that lesbian couples are better parents than heterosexual couples, which are better parents than male-only gay couples; who knows, until we try it?):

1. Gay couples are better than or equivalent in quality to heterosexual couples.

Then the state has good motivation, in consideration for the wellbeing of the child and the rights of the couples, to adopt to gay couples. This adoption should be enforeced, possibly even to groups that don’t want to adopt to gay couples.

2. Gay couples are worse parents than heterosexual couples, but better parents than single parents.

Then gay parents should be allowed to adopt where single parents are. And different organizations should be allowed to opt out, since the study results are ambiguous.

3. Gay couples are worse parents even than single parents.

It’s possible. If this is the outcome, for the sake of the wellbeing of the child, gay parents should not be allowed to adopt anywhere.

——

What do you think?

I think that are some gay couples that will be better parents than heterosexual couples and vice versa.  I don’t think we have any valid studies on this yet.  Gay couples would probably be better than single parents. Take a look at the sky rocketing rate of single parenthood. God has no requirements for responsible procreation—anyone can have a baby.  Of course we can choose to procreate the ideal way (ie within marriage).  A gay couple nearby adopted an african american baby—I don’t see large numbers of us Catholic couples lining up for that.  As for this issue there are plenty of non-catholic agencies to take over the placement and the children will still be found homes.  I do think the ideal is a married couple but I recognize that we do not live in an ideal world.

When it comes to children’s welfare, the rallying cry of the left has always been “if it saves only one child, it’s worth it”. This has been used to enact innumerous laws regarding driving seats, speed limits, safety helmets, smoking regulations, product recalls etc… Then along comes the homosexual agenda and children become worthless. Will homosexual parenting hurt a child?, who cares, the homosexuals rights trump that concern. Will discriminating against religious charities hurt children?, who cares, the rights of even one homosexual outweigh the rights of all children. How very strange.

@Beth: You would be dead wrong. The federal, state, and city governments combined do not spend nearly as much on humanitarian aid as the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church is hands down THE largest provider of humanitarian aid throughout the ENTIRE world. Oh, and all of it is done with a combination of funds received from parishioners along with volunteer work done by lay and religious members of the Church. More over, we not only give the aid but we give it with far greater efficiency and far less waste than any government ever dreamed.

@Paul Rimmer: 1) So you think that because we haven’t studied it scientifically, it’s okay to experiment on the mental health of defenseless children by placing them in these homes to find out what happens?
2) Here is a fact that cannot be ignored: All children are born to a mother and a father. That’s true whether the conception takes place through in vitro fertilization or surrogacy.  All children need their mother and their father to understand the whole of who they are and what it means to be a human being. A man is the only one who can teach a boy how to be a man. A woman is the only one who can teach a girl how to be a woman. A man is the only one who can teach a girl how to relate non-sexually to other men.  A woman is the only one who can teach a boy how to relate non-sexually to other women. A healthy heterosexual married couple is the only kind of couple that can model a healthy heterosexual marriage to a child.  The harm that happens when a child is placed into home with 2 men or a home with 2 women is that they do not get to see how a healthy heterosexual marriage plays out in daily life; and they will be missing out on appropriate relationship modeling for one of the two genders.

“1) So you think that because we haven’t studied it scientifically, it’s okay to experiment on the mental health of defenseless children by placing them in these homes to find out what happens?”

Yes.

There is no convincing reason, a priori, why we would expect the gay parent experience to be worse than not having a parent at all. If the experiments establish that gay parents are worse than no parents, then that’s unfortunate, but that particular outcome will be both very unlikely, and if it does happen, it will impact a very small part of the population. It’s part of the intrinsic risk.

All parenting necessarily involves “experimenting on the mental health of defenseless children.” All the disciplinary and other techniques my wife and I try on our son are just that. We only pray that when he gets out of our home he doesn’t need to be committed.

As for your second point, if these factors are so detrimental, and if the study is properly structured, then these negatives will be seen in the study. So far, it’s all conjecture. And even if you are right, such a scenario is not likely to be worse than a single parent scenario.

kendall,

You make a good point. That’s why we need to study the effects of same sex families on adopted and natural-born children.

Paul,
You risk losing your sense of humanity with a love of vocabulary and a devotion to ego. I refer to sentences such as, “..no convincing reason, a priori….if the experiments establish…impact a small part of the population…part of the intrinsic risk.”
No Paul, children should not be part of the intinsic risks involved in asinine adult experiments. This is the exact language Nazi and Communists have used. Children are human beings, and as such they should no more be unwilling participants in homosexual experiments then any other experiment.
Using this same logic, and same love of ego, we could justify all sorts of experiments on what we consider small expendable members of society.
SHAME.

kendall,

I don’t mean to come off that way. I work in science. Specifically, I’ve been writing papers and dissertation. And that’s the language they get written in. It’s very easy for me to fall into that style of writing, but it’s just a style. Actually, it’s not an especially attractive style. But it’s what my peers and betters want, and it’s what I’m trained for, so it’s become natural to slip into that mode of expression.

The style shouldn’t bespeak an intelligence, bur rather a lack of skill. If I were a better writer, I would tailor my words to my audience. Something to work toward.

As for your second point, since you (rightly) corrected my use of language, I feel it only fair to return the favor. When you use words like “Nazi” and “communist” when referring to another person’s view, it can cause you not to be taken very seriously.

Definitely, if I would find someone comparing my views to the Nazi’s, even if the comparison is in some sense a valid one, I would cease to pay attention to that person. It’s sort of a Godwin’s Law thing.

We experiment with the minds of children all the time. I do with my kids. My parents experimented with me. They learned how to parent from just trying things. Some things worked. Some things didn’t. I survived; more than that, I thrived, in great part thanks to them.

It is not clear how allowing some children to be adopted by gay parents, in places where single parent adoption is already incorporated, will be worse than the single-parent adoptions. If this is the case, then it’s unfortunate. But I see no good reason to think this will be the case.

But in cases like this, the best way to learn is to try.

@Paul: You ignore the data already available about the immense amount of harm done to children who are raised in single parent households - the increased crime rate, the greater risk of dropping out of high school, the difficulty maintaining stable relationships, much higher rates of divorce, etc. etc. etc. Children of single parent households are at great disadvantage over children of two-parent households.

Brandy,

You are right; I do ignore this. It may be that we should not adopt to single parent households. Currently, in some places, children are adopted out to single parents. Single parent adoption is discussed somewhat in my point (2):
—-
“2. Gay couples are worse parents than heterosexual couples, but better parents than single parents.

Then gay parents should be allowed to adopt where single parents are. And different organizations should be allowed to opt out, since the study results are ambiguous.”
—-
If it becomes the case that single parents are not allowed to adopt, and it is discovered that gay parents are better than single parents, but worse than straight parents, then it should be up to the individual agency whether to adopt to gay parents.
—-
One last note: It is true that single parent households are not as healthy as two-parent households. However, single parents who adopt may not be representative of single parent households. There may be a way to justify single parent adoption on the basis of the single parents who are selected to adopt.

Brandy,

This article:
http://library.adoption.com/articles/single-parent-adoption-3.html

discusses single parent adoption from a pro-single-parent-adoption perspective.

I haven’t had a chance to read through the article very carefully, but it seems to have some good information, and makes the argument that single parents who adopt are not the same demographic as the typical single parent.

Simcha,

You’re article rocks, as usual.

What we are experiencing now, in every area of life, is a crisis of the family.  Study after study shows that children AND adults do far better psychologically, spiritually, financially, and experience a higher degree of happiness when parents are married and stay married (really; the information is out there).  If we could get sex and marriage right, we wouldn’t have the social ills we have.  While fighting abortion is necessary, we must at some point stop putting a bandage on everything and prevent the wounds in the first place.

I suggest reading
Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-up World, by Jennifer Roback Morse

http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Sex-Finding-Life-Long-Hook-Up/dp/1890626589/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310824721&sr=8-1

and
The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Marriage-Married-Healthier-Financially/dp/0767906322/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310824769&sr=1-1

Brandy,

I assummed we were speaking of the Catholic Church in the United States.  I disagree—we are very fortunate here in America to have the gov’t provide for us when we can not.  What the Church gives a family does not compare to gov’t assistance with food, shelter and insurance.  If I needed assistance due to a sudden castrophe I am going to sign up for gov’t assistance not go to the Catholic Church.  Do you really believe the you would go to the Catholic church and they would give you a monthly allotment for food, insurance etc?  Now other countries are a different story because they do not have a government that provides for them.  That is where the work of the Catholic church and other relief agencies is greater but definitely not in America.  Take a look at what the gov’t gives out in aid each year.

“You would be dead wrong. The federal, state, and city governments combined do not spend nearly as much on humanitarian aid as the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church is hands down THE largest provider of humanitarian aid throughout the ENTIRE world.”

Hi again Brandy,
Out of curiosity I looked up some numbers.  The US spends approx 320 billion dollars per year on medicaid (for 59 million people) which is insurance for the poor and spends another 60 billion plus on food stamps (for over 40 million americans) not to mention other programs like WIC and welfare and social security disability (which is a service to those in need).  We have a very generous gov’t—actually all the taxpayers who foot the bill.  During natural diasters it is the gov’t sending millions in aid to the US cities not the Catholic church.  It is good we give to those in need but some of it is out of control and the gov’t can’t keep up.  I also thought more about the US aid in foreign countries.  The US does provide billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries for humanitarian efforts as well.  I think this is more money than the Catholic church provides.  I wholeheartedly believe in supporting Catholic organizations but the US government provides more money than the Catholic Church.  If you have info that says otherwise please share it.  I never considered the government a organization that provides to so many in need but looking a the numbers it is really a large amount of money.  What does the Catholic church spend inside and outside the US?

@Beth:
1) You are failing to count man hours (volunteer work) in your totals of what is given;
2) It is very difficult to compile a dollar amount of what is given as it is spread across so many different ministries and outreach programs operated by Catholic religious and laypeople and THAT is before you try to count the charitable contributions and work done at each individual parish ;
3) Much of the money the government provides as a “benefit” to the poverty stricken people in our country and in foreign countries is birth control and abortion - and that cannot be counted as humanitarian aid;
4) Catholic Churches in the US and around the world regularly provide food to people in need at St. Vincent de Paul societies and other similar parish-run programs. I have personally received utility and rent assistance from my own parish. They also provide assistance in finding work, obtaining clothing so you can get and keep your work, and many individuals volunteer to provide transportation and meet other needs;
5) When the government begins taking over the work that Christ has entrusted to those who follow Him, people begin to give less and do less for others because they tell themselves the government is doing it so they don’t need to. Outsourcing charity - which is what we do when we put the government in charge of taking care of the needy - is a poor substitute for rolling up your sleeves and helping your fellow man.

Brandy,

I’m sorry but there is no way you can say that the church is giving the same amount in billions of dollars that the gov’t provides.  A fraction of this billions is abortions and birth control.  At the last natural disaster while the church provided support it is the US gov’t that send millions if not billions of dollars (total).  Adding up the contribtuions from the church comes no where near what the gov’t provides.  People use food pantries to supplement their food stamps.  I am very familiar with Catholic charities and the great work they do but it is incorrect to say that they (in addition to the Catholic church as a whole) give more than the gov’t.  They clearly do not—adding up volunteer hours or not—we can not match the billions coming form the gov’t nor can the Catholic church offer health insurance for the poor.
I agree the gov’t has taken over too much responsibility that should really lie with the body of Christ.  It is forced charity and has created a society of entitlement rather than ones who pick themselves up by the bootstraps and help themselves and take responsibility for their choices.  I don’t disagree with you on the fact that the Church does do alot of good work for the poor.

Brilliant!

I was a bit surprised to read the various debates going on here, not because I don’t like to share ideas, but because some of it sounded a bit… tense.  I hope there will be a meeting of minds on these issues!

What I know about government aid is limited to a third-party view, and one that has not seen it up close.  However, from the little I have seen and read and experienced through reading personal testimonies, it seems like despite the vast number of dollars spent by our government on various services, the results are less than satisfactory.  The entire system on a whole appears to be inefficient and wasteful, and rather than actually improving the lot of these people, merely applies a very flimsy Band-Aid.  That is not to say that we should ditch the programs overnight, but serious reform and perhaps eventual weaning would be advisable.
The adoption issue can be a sticky one, but I believe there are also many couples who would LIKE to adopt, but are rejected because of income, age, etc.  The State certainly puts up many barriers to adoption, and while I agree that just handing children to anyone would be a mistake, I think the system could be revised.
For any Christian (I’m not sure what other religions believe), the knowledge that God made us in His image (in our ability to reason, in our ability to live in communion with one another, in our ability to procreate and love) and that masculinity and femininity in the form of man and woman is important should be sufficient to acknowledge that heterosexuality is what He intended, and any deviation from that is NOT what He intended.  And as He designed children to be produced out of heterosexuality and the family resembles Trinitarian Love, then it seems that He intended children to be raised by their mothers and fathers.  Certainly, some men and women fail at this miserably, but that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands in defeat and decide to do things differently than He planned.
Of course, if someone is not Christian, that entire paragraph will not mean much to them. :)

“The state is no longer content with doing a lousy job of caring for children—it’s now in the business of preventing the Church from doing a good job.”

YES. THIS. I have been reading your articles for awhile now, and I always find myself nodding the entire time I read them.

Is there a way to edit the post to release the part of this post that got caught in the “at least for now, the Catholic Church” link?

“What I find particularly disturbing is they are now putting homosexuality on the same level as religion”

Correction, they have placed same sex adoption OVER religious freedom.

Beth, I have never been poor, but let me make the stretch here.  If I were poor, I am sure I would appreciate money, but I would hardly assume that the biggest spender was the one who cared the most.  Second, if I went to my church in a time of crisis, no, I would not expect them to give me a monthly allowance; I know for a fact that a certain lay minister would put me up at her house and make me dinner starting that night!

Erika: I’ll show you a pro-lifer who isn’t jumping at the chance to adopt a child at the moment.  If you meet me, you may notice I have none of my own.  There’s a reason for that.  I obviously don’t have the means.  I’m not particularly attentive either; half the time I don’t even remember to water my plants.  If I were to get pregnant, which is highly unlikely, or otherwise find myself with an unexpected kid needing care imminently, of course I’d hunker down for the long haul and rearrange my priorities.  But for me to get into that situation on purpose—that’s crazy.  All of this may mean I am selfish, and I’d be the first to admit it.  What it doesn’t mean—just so everyone else is clear—is that anybody deserves to be killed or left to die.  Is it so unreasonable to expect people to either care for the children they make (never would I expect them to have to do it alone with no help), or avoid the behavior that tends to make them?

Julie: HEAR HEAR!

September 27, 2011

Mr. Alexander Simon,
Writer,
Sir William Place,
Building Block “C,”
Apartment #305, 8820 – 85 Street,
Edmonton, Alberta,
CANADA                   T6C 3C2.

Telephone: (780) 466-9719
E-mail: alexandersimonea@gmail.com

Vice-President,  Ms Debora Pozega Osburn,
University of Alberta, Relations Division,
Room Three Seven, University Hall,
Edmonton, Alberta,
CANADA                         T6G 2J9.

Telephone: (780) 492-9036
E-mail: toolkit@ualberta.ca

Attention!

Ms Vice President of the Hall of Relations to answer your discreet letter dated on my mother’s birthday and thank you and all (U of A) Alumni!

Medical is a field I need!
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek; … “The Western Roman Empire was the western half of the Roman Empire after its division by Diocletian in 285 B.C. ; the other half of the Roman Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire;” according to the research and War of Greece Athens versus Rome Italy!  The first man of warring and contoured the area of physician is Doktor Heiliges Römisches Reich; of Berlin now! Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_Augustus; again another grandee Sorcerer of Roman Catholic medicine and won the war a parting Sicilian and Italian entry tor Never or Netherlands then!
Ms Osburn; the errant I said is for the freedom as I am Roman Catholics to medicine and Sorcerer War conclusively! Please allow me time to explain my need to Profession medicine and war to protect all living including those friends we friend as a private non-people!
As per your review; and I can not article your complaint on me; please review my Official with my full Roman Catholic permit; the Grant MacEwan Academic Record: Student Identification # 1099123; and I ‘bless’ my mother dying of “congestive-heart failure;” and please do write to me above to show your attendance is equal for my ‘possible;’ attendance and thank you.
Dated on my mother’s (Ms Margaret Simon) Ban’s birthday; and I own a copy;
I wish to become a Medical Doctor!
I own a free health record: with the elaborate and finely careful Alberta Government;
Refer to #891375120; for confidential Record; lady and thank you for over considering my need;
as, “tax-paying;” man of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees!
My Account is not in “arrears:’ with the ‘kind permission;’ of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (C.B.I.C.); I can student fund my way to DOKTOR-SHIP!
“Fault;” as the rare and accepted crime free by the State Union of America Funk & Wagnalls trademarks of the Harper & Row Publishers Incorporated and Registered: the famous Linguistic and prose of the medical flank never disparaged any full Roman Catholic from medical degree!
The Science Editor with full Boston merit and graduation from Yale University and Harvard University is sited in medical degree and wrote this say on an M.D.: 
“A, (person) who has received a diploma in the “highest;” degree!.
Debra (I take kindly; Alex;) as a study then and graduate of the field of Public Relations; the day is ‘dark;’ by my family Catholic name why invite me to a September 22 – 25; 2011 celebration; with my full Roman Catholic identification resenting dated on my dying mother’s birthday?
This “new: Centennial Centre for the Interdisciplinary Science emporia; is this paid by the Alberta tax Credit by a man I write and support; by as a friend; Mr. Premier Ed Stelmach!  I call this friendly male and (?).!  All tax-payers must attend to olde Uncle Canuck! (Karl).!
All kidding aside; would the Ottawa Government rule over me to be “handed;” late friendship letter?
The reason being I am Noble to the heart of England and particular German of Social War for a Nationalistic and charismatic Leader? (Herr Adolph Hitler?)!
Madam; the “Long Range Development Plan (L.R.D.P.); is not an issue outlined by a famous and other media vehicles including the Edmonton Journal! Why?
If; the Canadian tax payer $; I care with a Scottish save and and a Chinese save; why does not the two mowing of men publicly announce to the greatest Province that is Texas, Austin, America here by the win in 1,702 Anon Domino; a rare Commemorative duly raised and a man of celibacy and no crime conviction is un-welcome nor announced?
I welcome your b-monthly meetings and I am happy to show what Registry is noted real and charge Calvary!
I look forward to my new Medical Degree and Graduation celebration!!!!!

Truly,

Mr. Alexander Simon
Medical Sorcerer (unannounced)!

\XX!

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Mr. Mel Odom,
Simon Pulse,
Simon & Shuster Corporation,
1230 – Avenue, New York, New York,
America                         10020.

Telephone (212) 698-7000

Mr. Alexander Simon,
Writer and Researcher,
Building Block C;,
The Sir William Place;
Apartment #305,
8820 – 85 Street,
Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada   T6C 3C2.

Telephone: (780) 466-9719

Mr.Odem:

Re:  Angel Redemption novel!

This is Canada’s birthday and I read your novel!
Fans are as stated in pure Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary as;  “An excited devotee or admirer of a sport, diversion, celebrity etc.;”!  In Canadian terms; and your book is bullet with pace for information from one detective reasoning why lost memory is not known for a true woman and her identity is removed by evil enemy!  According to page-126: of your policing as another hungry writer with pace; … People where protected by the Crown and by the Church were killed and property was taken.”
I find my mother I love dearly a fully rare love and I am fully Registered Holy Baptized and Holy Confirmed Roman Catholic and write too to cool celibacy; family separation and on-going arthritic pain and my mother did die on June 10, 2012 this year and I supremely love her; sir!
The reason I read your article is love for family including your writing!
____________________________________________________________________________________________X

“HUNGRY FOR THE WOLF!”

Here the best of talent Starr in a Berlin, German adaptation of true to life accurate and held in archives of People who refused caring for one of the best friend in woodland Bavaria the Wolf!  According to … “Germany now had control of powerful land based transmitters on the coast of France, which were perfectly capable of sending messages to U-boats across the Atlantic;” http://www.uboataces.com/tactics-wolfpack.shtml; is moving under pure German Order; every able Reich Mariner fought for the soil clean of Germany and adopted a friend called the Wolf and had one tag or insignia the Wofle in last E for eternal!
________________________________________________________________________________________X
“THE PACK!”
Here the best of talent Starr in a Berlin, German adaptation of true to life accurate and held in archives of People who refused caring for one of the best friend in woodland Bavaria the Wolf!  According to … “Germany now had control of powerful land based transmitters on the coast of France, which were perfectly capable of sending messages to U-boats across the Atlantic;” http://www.uboataces.com/tactics-wolfpack.shtml; is moving under pure German Order; every able Reich Mariner fought for the soil clean of Germany and adopted a friend called the Wolf and had one tag or insignia the Wofle in last E for eternal!
Adolf Hitler and Herr to Berlin German Nation Ordered the Wolfe Pack in!  (Herr) Adolf Hitler’s Germany repudiated the treaty and forcefully negotiated the right to build U-boats.”  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612159/U-boat; is proof; … “why was The U-boat campaign then became a race between German sinkings of merchant ships and the building of ships, mainly in the United States, to replace them.?”  The false reason was … “The Armistice terms of 1918 required Germany to surrender all its U-boats, and the Treaty of Versailles forbade it to possess them in the future.”  In World War II Germany built 1,162 U-boats; and only two never surfaced!  Germany never bowed to French ever!!

________________________________________________________________________________________X
“The U-Boat!”
Here the best of talent Starr in a Berlin, German adaptation of true to life accurate and held in archives of People who refused caring for one of the best friend in woodland Bavaria the Wolf!  According to … “Germany now had control of powerful land based transmitters on the coast of France, which were perfectly capable of sending messages to U-boats across the Atlantic;” http://www.uboataces.com/tactics-wolfpack.shtml; is moving under pure German Order; every able Reich Mariner fought for the soil clean of Germany and adopted a friend called the Wolf and had one tag or insignia the Wofle in last E for eternal!
Adolf Hitler and Herr to Berlin German Nation Ordered the Wolfe Pack in!  (Herr) Adolf Hitler’s Germany repudiated the treaty and forcefully negotiated the right to build U-boats.”  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612159/U-boat; is proof; … “why was The U-boat campaign then became a race between German sinkings of merchant ships and the building of ships, mainly in the United States, to replace them.?”  The false reason was … “The Armistice terms of 1918 required Germany to surrender all its U-boats, and the Treaty of Versailles forbade it to possess them in the future.”  In World War II Germany built 1,162 U-boats; and only two never surfaced!  Germany never bowed to French ever!!

“ON GLORY TO THE FUHRER!”
According to Herr Jozef Garlinski; … “the exploit of the German U-boat … called a phony ‘Versailles dictum;’ and in glorious power when Herr Adolf Hitler arrived with near full NAZI Germany; the engineering of German military demilitarized France!  For the Rhineland; The Fuhrer rose and blocked with the NAZIS; with the new man Herr Marshal Hermann Goering; with the one Berlin Luftwaffe; a “blitzkrieg”; for any communist to ask German Superiority to surrender.! 
________________________________________________________________________________________X

##