The news you may have missed:

• A recent survey from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate suggests that, if current trends continue, there will be fewer than 1,000 religious women in the U.S.A. by 2043. The same survey indicates that India has more religious women than any other country, 1 sister for every 200 Catholics.

• In a move that would increase religious persecution in India's Kerela State, lawmakers are considering a ban on sacramental wine.

• As the attempts to redefine marriage continue, a federal has issued a second ruling decriminalizing polygamy in Utah.

• A new study confirms what previous studies already showed, that same-sex adoptions are not as harmless as they are often portrayed.

• A different new study suggests the increased risk of breast cancer caused by oral contraceptives may be higher than previously stated.

Judge: "A same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship"

The legal reality of same-sex "marriages" in some states of the Union has created no small number of legal questions and curiosities, not the least of which is the status of children born through in vitro fertilization to same-sex couples, as highlighted yesterday in the New York Times.

When two women who are legally "married" in the state of New York approached the court to adopt a child, Judge Margarita López Torres said their was no reason for the two women to legally adopt the child because both of their names already appear on the birth certificate.

In her ruling, the judge noted that "a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship."  That insufficiency couldn't be biological, could it?

The ruling has raised concerns among gay rights activists about the status of children of same-sex couples who might move to other states where such "marriages" are not legally recognized.

Social science evidence does not support same sex parents

Last month (I'm in the processing of clearing off my desktop) Rich Fitzgibbons wrote about well-documented article at MercatorNet titled "Same sex adoption is not a game" in which he explains the potential harm adoptive children will suffer if placed with same sex couples.  The text of his article follows, with my emphases:

Moves by legislators and homosexual activists to endorse same sex adoption are misguided. Their intentions may be good, but they are ignoring the rights of children and important social and psychological research into the homosexual lifestyle.

The recent decision of Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois to separate from the Church and place children in same sex unions occurred after Illinois followed the lead set by other states and enacted legislation to protect so-called rights for homosexual unions.

This legislation, the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, denied funding to social service agencies that refuse to permit same sex adoption.

Experimenting on children by permitting adoption by same sex couples poses serious problems. Children have a right to and a need for parenting by both a father and a mother. This need should be recognized by the state and by professional groups as far more important than an adult’s supposed right to adopt.

The views presented here are based on extensive social science research and scholarship, on my clinical experience as a psychiatrist that includes consulting with adoptive and foster children for several years, treating adoptive children for almost 35 years, writing about their treatment in a textbook for the American Psychological Association (1) and as the father of three adopted daughters.

The risks in same sex unions

Same sex relationships do not provide an ideal environment in which to raise children for several reasons.

First, same sex couples tend to be promiscuous. One of the largest studies of same sex couples revealed that only seven of 156 couples had a sexual relationship which was totally monogamous. Most of these relationships lasted less than five years. Couples whose relationship lasted longer incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity: “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10-year mark is the lack of possessiveness,” observed two scholars who were also partners, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. “Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can be the greatest internal threat to their staying together.” (2)

Second, the unions are very fragile. The probability of breakup is high for lesbian couples. In a 2010 report, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, 40 percent of the couples who had conceived a child by artificial insemination had broken up.(3) Lisa Diamond reported in her book, Sexual Fluidity, that “more than two-thirds of the women in my sample had changed their identity labels at least once after the first interview. The women who kept the same identity for the whole ten years proved to be the smallest and most atypical group.” If a woman in a same-sex relationship changes her identity label, the relationship breaks up.

And third, the couple may not necessarily be physically healthy. Dutch research has found that most new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among homosexual men who were in steady relationships. The researcher concluded that: “Prevention measures should address risky behavior, especially with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.” (4) Research shows that same sex unions suffer a significantly higher prevalence of domestic abuse, depression, substance-abuse disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases.(5) Should adopted children be placed with a couple at risk of a serious and emotionally draining illness?

Children need a mother and a father

The most important issue is the welfare of the child. Social science research has repeatedly demonstrated the vital importance of both a father and a mother for the healthy development of children and the serious risks that they face if they are raised without a mother or a father. Mothers and fathers bring unique gifts that are essential to the health of a child.

Among the many distinctive talents that mothers bring to the parenting enterprise, three stand out: their capacity to breastfeed, their ability to understand infants and children, and their ability to offer nurture and comfort.

Social science studies confirm this. Numerous reports indicate that infants and toddlers prefer mothers to fathers when they are hungry, afraid or sick. Mothers tend to be more soothing. Mothers are more responsive to the distinctive cries of infants; they are better able than fathers, for instance, to distinguish between a cry of hunger and a cry of pain. They are also better than fathers at detecting the emotions of their children by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures.

Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood.(6) Clinical experience suggests that deliberately depriving a child of its mother, motherlessness, causes severe damage because mothers are crucial in establishing a child’s ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships. All cultures recognize the essential role of the mother.

Fathers also have distinctive talents.(7) Fathers excel when it comes to providing discipline, play, and challenging children to embrace life’s challenges. They also provide essential role models for boys. Their presence in the home protects a child from fear and strengthens a child’s ability to feel safe. The extensive research on the serious psychological, academic and social problems among youth raised in fatherless families demonstrates the importance of the presence of the father in the home for healthy child development.

The rights and needs of children to a mother and a father should be protected by the state. Adults do not have a right to deprive children of a father or a mother.

The children do suffer

There are strong indications that children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.

In 1996 a well-designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia -- 58 children in married families, 58 in families headed by cohabitating heterosexuals and 58 in home with homosexual unions – suggested that married couples offered the best environment for a child’s social and education environment. Cohabiting couples were second best and homosexual couples came last.(8)

The results of a 2009 study of women in New York, Boston, and San Francisco are similar. Researchers interviewed 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers. The women (average age 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: they were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy; they were less able to trust and depend on others; and they experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers.(9)

Flawed studies with positive results

Not surprisingly, there are scholars who oppose this weighty evidence. Two major studies published in 2010 are often cited by homosexual activists and the media. Nanette Gartrell and Henry Bos (10) and Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey (11) claim that children who were deliberately deprived of the benefits of gender complementarity in a home with a father and a mother suffer no psychological damage.

However, all data in the Gartell and Bos article are self-reports by the mother and the child. The mothers were aware of the political agenda of the research and this must have skewed the results. This defect in methodology severely weakens the report.

In the meta-study by Biblarz and Stacey, in 31 of the 33 studies of two parent families, it was the parents who provided the data, which consisted of subjective judgments. Once again, this created a social desirability bias because the homosexual parents knew the political agenda behind the study. Furthermore, of the 33 studies in two-person families, only two studies included men, although the title, “How does the gender of parents matter?” suggests that both men and women were fully represented.

Much of the research on same-sex couples tends to have serious methodological flaws. It is often argued that there is no evidence that children are harmed if they are raised by homosexual men. This is true, but the absence of evidence does not prove the case. It means that there is no evidence. Studies of children raised by homosexual men are rare. No studies have examined the long-term effects on adult males raised by homosexual men.

A grave injustice for adopted children

An adopted child has been separated from his or her biological parents. The child feels this loss. For this reason adoption agencies historically have sought the best possible placement -- a sensitive and stable father and mother. A same-sex couple is by definition a second-class placement, since a parent of the opposite sex is missing.

A grave injustice to adoptive children is occurring as growing numbers of Catholic social service adoption agencies that have provided outstanding help to children, parents and families for decades are being denied the right to continue. Legislatures are placing the rights of homosexual unions to adopt above the needs and rights of children to a mother and a father.

Deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother harms the child.(12) Social science research supports this view. Adoptive children have experienced early-life abandonment trauma and should be protected from the additional trauma of being exposed to a cruel social experiment. Will no one step forward to protect these children?

Rick Fitzgibbons is the director of Comprehensive Counseling Services in West Conshohocken PA. He has practiced psychiatry for 35 years with a specialty in the treatment of excessive anger.
Notes

(1) Enright, R. & Fitzgibbons, R. (2000). Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books ,p. 187-89.

(2) McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A. 1985. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Prentice Hall.

(3) Gartrell, N. & Bos, H. (2010) US national Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-year-old Adolescents, Pediatrics, Volume 126, Number 1, July 2010, 28-36.

(4) Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS 17: 1029-38.

(5) D. O’Leary. (2007) One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 149-68.

(6) Kobak, R. (1999). "The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships: Implications for theory, research, and clinical intervention". In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver. (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 21-43). New York: The Guilford Press.

(7) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/july-dec99/fisher_8-16.html.

(8) Sarantakos, S. (1996) Children in three contexts. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.

(9) Sirota, T, (2009) Adult Attachment Style Dimensions in Women with Gay or Bisexual Fathers. Arch. Psych Nursing, 23, 289-297.

(10) Gartrell, N. & Bos, H. (2010) US national Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-year-old Adolescents, Pediatrics, Volume 126, Number 1, July 2010 p. 28-36.

(11) Biblarz, T. J. & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family. 72, 3-22.

(12) Kobak, R. (1999). "The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships: Implications for theory, research, and clinical intervention". In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver. (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 21-43). New York: The Guilford Press.; Popenoe,D. (1996) Life Without Father, New York: Free Press, P. 176; Golombok, S. et al (1997) Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: Family relationships and the socioeconomic development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. J. Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38: 783-791; Gallagher M. & Baker, J.K. (2004) Do Mom and Dads Matter: Evidence from the social sciences on family structure and at the best interests of the child. Margins 161(4):161-180.

Is the State of Illinois lying about future of children placed with Catholic Charities?

We received yesterday the not unexpected news, sad as it is, that Judge John Schmidt has denied Catholic Charities' request to stay his earlier ruling and to reconsider his decision.

From the State Journal-Register, with my emphases and comments:

The state Department of Children and Family Services can begin canceling its adoption and foster care contracts with Catholic Charities, Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled Monday.

Schmidt denied Catholic Charities’ emergency request to stay his earlier ruling that the group has no right to state contracts to provide such services [which isn't the issue.  The issue at hand is whether the State can refuse to give contracts because of an organization's religious belief.  It is a matter of discrimination based on religion]. Schmidt also refused to reconsider that decision [we didn't really expect him to change his previous ruling].

“I see no reason to issue that,” Schmidt said of the stay request and the reconsideration motion.

Catholic Charities next will turn to Illinois’ 4th District Appellate Court in hopes of staying Schmidt's ruling, according to attorneys for Catholic Charities agencies associated with the Springfield, Peoria, Belleville and Joliet dioceses.

Catholic Charities says it faces irreparable harm if the contracts are canceled, including the possible layoff of hundreds of employees.

State officials did not renew the contracts after Catholic Charities said its religious principles do not allow it to place foster and adoptive children in the homes of unmarried couples, including those in civil unions [kudos to Chris Wetterich for getting it right].

DCFS contends Catholic Charities ' policy violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act [they have still apparently read neither the title of the Act nor the Act itself]. The agency ended its contracts with the charity in the four dioceses in June.

Lawyers for the state said no child will lose his or her caseworker or supervisor if the state transfers Catholic Charities clients to other agencies, a point disputed by Catholic Charities [this is either a statement of absolute ignorance or a blatant lie, and this wouldn't be the first time the State has lied to us about the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act.  If the contracts with Catholic Charities are ended - as the State intends and shows of sign of doing - in what way could the 2,000 children placed with Catholic Charities possibly keep their caseworkers?!  The only way this is possible is if other agencies hired Catholic Charities' caseworkers.  But if this wouldn't ensure that the children could keep their caseworkers because a caseworker would be forced to violate his or her conscience.  That statement from the lawyers for the State is ludicrous].

“That claim is almost impossible,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society, which represents Catholic Charities. “Basically, they would have to recreate Catholic Charities without the Catholic.”

Breen called for the state not to begin transferring adoption and foster care cases to other agencies until appeals are completed.

“The state could perfectly well allow this process to conclude,” Breen said [but they won't.  The State is seeking to complete eject the Church from the public square.  Once the Church is forced out of foster care and adoptions, legislators will push to make the Church's teaching about homosexuality a hate crime, mark my words; we've seen it happen elsewhere, and in this same fashion and order].

Apart from the children, Catholic Charities will lose 50 percent or more of its revenue if the state succeeds in canceling its contract with the group. The agency also will have to pay out accrued vacation and face other expenses if it has to lay off employees.

In the Springfield diocese, about half of Catholic Charities’ 190 employees are associated with adoption services and foster care, said Steven Roach, the group’s executive director. But Roach called it premature to discuss when layoff notices will be sent out.

“The real damage is when you separate the kids from their caseworker,” Roach said. “It will happen.”

Officials with DCFS could not be reached for comment Monday, but a spokesman said a week ago that it is more important that the transitions be done correctly than immediately [I'll believe that when I see it].

Harvey Grossman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties of Union, said the ACLU agrees with Schmidt’s decision. Studies show gay and lesbian couples do as well as parents as opposite-sex couples, he said [and there are studies to prove the contrary].

“They (Catholic Charities) do not have the right to impose religious values on those who are wards of the state,” he said [but apparently the ACLU and DCFS does have the right to impose anti-religious values on those who are wards of the State.  I've grown very tired of the liberal double standard].

Another story, another detail

With each story I read on the recent decision in favor of Catholic Charities I learn another detail about the case.  It would be interesting to try to piece a full acount together, but I don't have time to do that at the moment.

Instead, I'll post the following article from Life Site News, with my emphases and comments:

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, July 13, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Illinois judge has blocked the state’s attempt to end its contracts with Catholic Charities after they refused an order to participate in same-sex adoptions and foster care placements. The move would have affected nearly 2,000 foster children.


“We’re not going to be removing children from homes,” said Judge John Schmidt of the Sangamon County Circuit Court, according to the Chicago Tribune. “I can’t be any clearer.”

Judge Schmidt ruled that the state’s contracts with Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Joliet, Peoria, and Springfield, which ran out June 30th, will continue until a full hearing on August 17th.

On Friday, the state’s Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) informed the agencies that the state would not accept their contracts for fiscal year 2012 because they had “made it clear” that they would not comply with the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, which took effect June 1st.

The bill’s promoters had actively campaigned to dispel the “myth” that it would affect faith-based adoption agencies. But an amendment to specifically protect faith-based agencies proposed by the Act’s sponsor, Sen. David Koehler, who became alarmed after the Act was used to target such agencies, failed in April.

During the hearing, Judge Schmidt said the DCFS’ Friday letter had the “appearance of gamesmanship” [I thought so, too, together with a great deal of presumption].

“This is a great win for the 2,000 children under the care of Catholic Charities, protecting these kids from the grave disruption that the state’s reckless decision to terminate would have caused,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society, who are representing Catholic Charities.

“We will continue this fight until all young people in need now and in the future are guaranteed their right to receive the high-quality foster and adoption care that the Catholic Church has provided for over a century to Illinois children.”

Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria said he was “encouraged by the judge’s recognition today of the grave harm that would result if Catholic Charities was forced out of its long-standing mission of serving children in foster care and adoption.”

“We continue to believe we can adhere to our religious principles and operate within Illinois law,” he added. “Our focus has always been on living the Gospel mission by serving and protecting vulnerable children throughout our communities, and we will continue our faithful mission building a future filled with hope.”

You may have heard that Catholic Charities of the Dioceses of Springfield in Illinois, Joliet and Peoria have filed for a Declaratory Judgment regarding the recently signed Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act in the State of Illinois.

The litigation has received some media attention, though not too much from what I have seen.  And what I have seen has not been very accurate.

Two weeks ago Bishop Paprocki addressed the issue in his column in the Catholic Times, which I had forgotten to post here.  I have simply emphasized one sentence in the article because the piece is worth your reading in its entirety:

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,


Most people in Illinois are probably aware that the state legislature passed and the governor signed a new law that legalized civil unions effective June 1. Did you know that the full title of the new law is the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act? If not, you might be wondering why the Catholic Charities of the dioceses of Springfield in Illinois, Peoria and Joliet recently went to court to seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide foster care and adoption services as it has for decades. You might think that foster care and adoption services offered by religious organizations under contract with the Department of Children and Family Services should be forced to place children with civil union couples if you didn’t know that the new law was also designed to protect religious freedom.

In fact, since “Religious Freedom Protection” is mentioned before “Civil Union” in the title of the act, one could say that protecting religious practices from any adverse effects of permitting civil unions was the primary purpose of the act. True to the act’s title, Section 15 of the new act provides, “Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.”

The legislative history of the bill bears this out. On the floor of the Illinois Senate on Dec. 1, 2010, Senator David Koehler of Peoria, sponsor of the bill which was adopted later that day, answering specific, explicit questions put to him by Senator William Haine of Alton, referred to a variety of religious practices on the part of “these institutions of faith of all denominations, Christian and Jewish [which] go to their various agencies providing social services, retreats, religious camps, homeless shelters, senior care centers, adoption agencies, hospitals, a wide gamut of things. So, that’s covered under the first sentence” of Section 15, he queried, to which Senator Koehler answered: “Yes. The — certainly the intent of Rep. (Gregory) Harris and I is not to at all, you know, impede the rights that religious organizations have to carry out their — what their duties and — and religious activities are.”

Catholic Charities seek a declaration from the court that their longstanding position of not accepting initial applications from non-married couples who live together — regardless of sexual orientation — is protected by the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities also seek a court injunction against further action by Illinois government officials to the contrary.

A spokeswoman with the attorney general’s office said in response, “Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court.” First of all, Catholic Charities complies with all child protection laws. Also, religious freedom is itself a civil right. Moreover, Catholic Charities and Catholic Social Services agencies of the Illinois Catholic Dioceses, as well as other religious agencies providing adoption and foster care services, for months have implored the State of Illinois to confirm that religious-based agencies need not violate the moral teachings of their faith in their adoption and foster care programs. Unfortunately, the state has refused to do so in either the executive or legislative branches of government, so Catholic Charities had no other option left but to seek such clarification from the judiciary.

It must be noted that Catholic Charities denies no one any “legal benefit” by its religiously-based policy of not accepting or processing applications for adoption or foster care that come from same-sex or heterosexual unmarried couples. The civil unions law binds the State of Illinois, which dispenses and exercises the sovereign power of the state in 1) licensing social service agencies, and 2) licensing adoptive and foster care couples and parents. The only “denial” in terms of “equal treatment” of gays and lesbian applicants would occur if they could not obtain services anywhere from the state, and that is simply not the case. There are many, many social services agencies, acting on behalf of the Department of Children and Family Services and the State of Illinois, which would be only too glad to accommodate these applicants. Indeed, the state cannot point to even one couple whose applications couldn’t be accommodated, because there are none!

Catholic Charities have served thousands of children and families with top-quality, nurturing care since 1921 and handle about 20 percent of the cases in Illinois. Catholic Charities’ leaders are extremely concerned what will happen with those children and families if they are forced out of this work. Please pray that they be allowed to continue to care for these children in need according to our Catholic religious beliefs and practices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.

More anti-Catholicism, this time from San Francisco

Friend and reader William passed along this post from The Catholic Key about an apparently legal case of anti-Catholicism from the City of San Francisco (with my emphases and comments):

Last Friday, an eleven-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court dismissed a claim by Catholics in San Francisco that the City Board of Supervisors violated the Establishment Clause when they denounced Church teaching and urged the Archbishop of San Francisco to defy the Vatican [I thought First Ammendment protected against the government impeding in the free exerceise of religion]. A little background is warranted.

Early in 2006, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a statement clarifying that Church agencies should not place children for adoption with same-sex couples [there's no real surprise here]. The statement had particular significance for Levada’s former Archdiocese of San Francisco, whose Catholic Charities agency had been placing children for adoption with same-sex couples.

In response to Cardinal Levada’s statement, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution denouncing the Vatican’s foreign meddling, demanding Levada retract his “hateful,” “insulting,” “discriminatory,” “callous” and ignorant directive, and urging current San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer and Catholic Charities “to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada.” [Why have they not passed a similar resolution against the Muslim faith?]Members of the Board of Supervisors also threatened to remove funding from Catholic Charities’ other programs unless they did defy the Vatican [might that not be coersion?] (The City was not funding the adoption program at Catholic Charities) [more].