Religious liberty protection that isn't

The Chicago Tribune today takes a look at the religious protections that aren't granted by the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act:

Critics of the bill that positions Illinois to become the 15th state to allow gay marriage point out that, though it protects clergy and houses of worship, it doesn't spell out exemptions for people and businesses who, based on their religious beliefs, might not want to do business with same-sex couples. The text of the bill makes clear that it doesn't alter two related laws: the Illinois Human Rights Act and the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows exemptions from certain rules as long as those exceptions don't harm the welfare of society.

For more particular examples, read the article.

It should be remembered that when the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act was passed and signed into law, we were repeatedly told that the Human Rights Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected religious liberty, yet it took only 6 months for the state to force Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoption services:

In addition to objecting to the law on moral grounds, Catholic groups say the narrow exemption for clergy and places of worship fails to protect the religious freedoms of other religious entities such as hospitals, schools, nursing homes and social services.

Patrick Cacchione, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Health Association, points out that when Catholic Charities refused to issue foster care licenses to gay couples in civil unions, the state chose not to renew its contract, saying it violated the law.

"I couldn't have anticipated it," Cacchione said, recalling assurances from lawmakers that the civil union law would not interfere with the groups' social work. "I was shocked."

After that surprise consequence, Cacchione said, he expects the marriage law to produce "fallout that I can't even anticipate."

"That's what we fear going forward: the unknown, the implementation, the administration of this and the variety of different rules and regulations that we can't even imagine," he said.

Majority Leader says Illinois should approve same-sex "marrige" to boost economy

In a letter to the members of the Illinois House of Representatives, Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) urged House of Representatives to pass the so-called Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act because Illinois should not miss this opportunity for economic growth, according to the Quad City Times.  What happened to the calls for fairness and equality?

I have been unable to locate a copy of the letter and most news reports are identical and do not provide substantive quotes, but WISTV reports that the Majority Leader sees in the debate surrounding same-sex "marriage" "an economic component that we cannot ignore."

The State Journal-Register reports that the Majority Leader also said that everyone should have the right to demonstrate their love.  Leaving aside the obvious point that demonstrations of love are not reserved for marriage, one wonders, then, why the RFMFA forbids certain people of the same sex from marrying each other.  One might also wonder why three people could not enter a marriage.

Some will likely say nothing in the proposed legislation would legalize incest or polygamy, but the trajectory of her thoughts easily head in these directions.  If marriage is only about the economy and demonstrations of love, where does it stop?

With the possibility of the RFMFA being called to a vote in the House looming in the near future, it is encouraging that the proposed legislation may still be ten votes short for passage.  Even so, we cannot simply sit by.  Please, contact your Representative and urge him to vote against the bill, remind her of the lies that were told before the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union bill, and of the real dangers the RFMFA poses to religious freedom.

Remember the recent words of Pope Francis:

None of us can say, "I have nothing to do with this, they govern. . . ." No, no, I am responsible for their governance, and I have to do the best so that they govern well, and I have to do my best by participating in politics according to my ability. Politics, according to the Social Doctrine of the Church, is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common good. I cannot wash my hands, eh? We all have to give something!

We must act!

Illinois Senate approves redefinition of marriage

A few moments ago the Illinois Senate approved the redinition redefinition of marriage - in mockery of actual married love and in a great falsehood.

The so-called Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act passed by a vote of 34 to 21.

It took nine months after the passage of the so-called Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act before the religious liberty of Catholic Charities was stripped away when we were forced out of foster care and adoption services even though we were promised - on the floor of the Senate - that the bill would in no way affect foster care and adoption services.

Somehow I don't expect it will take so long this time around, though I do hope I am incorrect in my assessment.

And to think that two years the Illinois legislators assured us that they would not in the future push for "gay marriage" because the Civil Union Act afforded them all the rights they deserved.  One lie on top of another on top of another.

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.

Paprocki: The State has created an unnecessary crisis

His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki issued a statement today following the decision by the appellate court to deny Catholic Charities a requested stay:

Today’s appellate court decision denying an emergency stay for Catholic Charities to continue to provide foster care and adoption services is regrettable. The State’s insistence on forcing Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoption services has created an unnecessary crisis. For months, children have been denied access to hundreds of experienced, licensed Catholic Charities foster homes across the State and this unethical decision by the State to prevent placements in these homes is doing irreparable harm to children. The losers in this wholly preventable situation are the children and families who have been served and who might have been served in the future by agencies that reflect their own core values.
The Bishops of Belleville, Joliet and Springfield will confer with their advisors to determine the next step, specifically, whether to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. We are also closely watching the progress of Senate Bill 2495, introduced in the Illinois General Assembly’s fall veto session by State senator Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon) which, if passed, would strengthen the religious freedom guarantees of agencies such as Catholic Charities.

A presumption of guilt

Steven Roach, Executive Director of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois recently penned an editorial commenting on Judge John Schmidt's recent ruling in favor of the Department of Children and Family Services of the State of Illinois.

The State Journal-Register would not print the editorial - presumably for reasons of length - but I am happy to publish it for you here, with my emphases:

A Presumption of Guilt

For 40 years, Catholic Charities in Illinois has partnered with DCFS in providing foster care and adoption services for the state’s abused and neglected children. Both parties agree that it has been a highly successful partnership, effectively providing care and permanent loving homes for literally tens of thousands of these vulnerable children. The partnership saved taxpayers millions of dollars, since Catholic Charities does it much cheaper than if the state itself provided the services.  In addition, the partnership also enabled the state to capture tens of millions more in federal reimbursement because of the outstanding success Catholic Charities (and other private agencies) achieved in effectively providing these programs.

The state has publically pronounced that the partnership in Illinois between DCFS and private agencies should serve as a national model to be replicated across the country as the best way to manage the tremendous difficulties of a statewide child welfare system. As one of the largest private agencies in the state, Catholic Charities is proud to have been an integral part of this successful model.

We have worked closely with our friends at DCFS over the years to ensure that the best interest of children was always the primary motivation for the services that were provided. A rare “win-win” situation was created. The children won because they were being provided with the highest quality care when they were placed with Catholic Charities. DCFS won because Catholic Charities helped them meet the vast legal and federal requirements that are placed on the state.  The taxpayers of Illinois won because by privatizing 80% of the casework in the child welfare system, the state annually saves millions.

Catholic Charities won because these programs allowed us to fulfill one of the primary objectives of our religious mission – serving children in desperate need – the modern-day “orphans”.  Catholic Charities was always found to be in complete compliance with all Illinois and federal law according to the state’s own constant monitoring reviews. Year after year, we were praised by DCFS for our accomplishments and thanked for being a “valued partner” in the service of children.  And then something changed…

The current controversy between Catholic Charities and the State of Illinois began with the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.  Quite simply, at issue is whether or not religious freedom protection actually exists in this new law (and other laws) and that it applies to Catholic Charities foster care and adoption programs.  Immediately after its passage, the state accused Catholic Charities of being in violation of the law because of our opposition to the placement of children in the homes of unmarried couples who are living together, regardless of sexual orientation. Our position is based on centuries’ old religious teachings about the definition of marriage and the inappropriateness of unmarried cohabitation. In the past, the state never had an issue with our practice regarding unmarried and cohabitating heterosexual couples, but since unmarried and cohabitating homosexual couples were thrust into the equation, the state went on the attack. The fact is that such couples have many other options available to them. Our religious practices do not deny those opportunities to anyone.

And so Catholic Charities stands accused of discrimination by the state for being in violation of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.  From the beginning, we have adamantly maintained that we are in full compliance with this new law given the religious protection language actually written into the law and the legislative intent defined in the Senate debate that clearly protects “institutions of faith” with “various agencies providing social services, retreats, religious camps, homeless shelters, senior service centers, adoption agencies, hospitals” from interference or regulation. However, this religious protection has been completely dismissed by the state and instead we have been treated under a presumption of guilt. 

The state’s sole reason for terminating the foster care/adoption contracts after 40 years is based on this presumption of guilt – “Catholic Charities is in violation of the new law and therefore the contracts will be terminated”.  No other reason has been given to sever this successful partnership because no other reason exists. We continue to maintain that we are in full compliance with the new law and believe if you are accused of something, you have a right to defend yourself against those specific allegations.   

Catholic Charities went to court to get an answer to the specific accusation levied against us.  We felt if we were found by a court to be in compliance with the new law, then obviously there is no reason for the partnership with DCFS to be terminated.  After all for decades, it has proven to be in the best interest of Illinois’ children that the partnership continued.  The recent ruling failed to address the critical question of Catholic Charities’ compliance with the new law - the entire reason for this controversy.

Most of the criticism and opposition to Catholic Charities supports the state’s presumption of guilt. It goes something like this, “If Catholic Charities refuses to comply with the law, they should not be allowed to contract with the state”, or “Taxpayer money/public funds should not be used to fund agencies that are in violation of the law.”  Both statements are based on the biased premise that Catholic Charities is already guilty of the accusations made by the state.

Should Catholic Charities be allowed to defend itself against the allegations that caused the termination of our contracts? We feel any reasonable person would agree we should have the opportunity to “face our accusers,” especially with so much at stake for thousands of our foster children, foster parents and dedicated staff. 

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].

In Illinois, as in Britain

In what seems a rather surprising move in Britain - as it would in many other places today, sad as it is - the Advertising Standards Authority has banned a cell phone commercial that was to air during Holy Week the ASA deemed would be offensive to Christians.  From the description given of the commerical, I'm not sure it is so much offensive as it is simply in bad taste and poor in thought.
Said the ASA:

"We considered that, although the ads were intended to be light-hearted and humorous, their depiction of Jesus winking and holding a thumbs-up sign, with the text "miraculous" deals during Easter, the Christian Holy Week which celebrated Christ's resurrection, gave the impression that they were mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs," the ASA said on Wednesday.
"We therefore concluded that the ads were disrespectful to the Christian faith and were likely to cause serious offence, particularly to Christians."

Could it be that these is part of the fruit being born in Britain after Pope Benedict XVI's recent pastoral visit there?

Perhaps, but there is also the distubring news from Britain - that will soon likewise happen in the USA (indeed, it is already being to happen) - that a Member of Parliament has called on Prime Minister David Cameron to make it illegal for Christian churches to refuse to conduct homosexual civil unions; indeed, Mike Weatherley would go so far as to refuse to allow Christian ministers to conduct even true marriages.  It sounds all too familiar to the present situation in Illinois.

Prior to the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act we were told explicitly - on the floor of the chamber - that the new legislation would not affect foster care and adoptions.  After the passage of the law we find the contrary to the true: the State is actively seeking to force Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoptions, all on the basis of our inability to recognize as a civil union as the equivalent of a valid marriage (which, it should be remember, the RFPCUA does not require us to do).

What is the basis for MP Weatherley's push to force the Church out of marriages?  Her inability to recognize civil unions as the equivalent of a valid marriage:

He told Mr Cameron to follow a precedent he suggested had been set by laws compelling 11 Catholic adoption agencies to assess gay couples as potential adopters and foster parents, although most of them have either since closed or left the control of the church.

Mr Weatherley said that the alternative would be to surrender to a “messy compromise” in which gays would remain the victims of inequality.

“I am becoming increasingly concerned about the inequality which exists between the unions of same-sex couples and those of opposite-sex couples in this country,” he said in his letter.

“As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality,” he said.

“Such behaviour is not be tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all.”

Mr Weatherley described the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, which permitted legal recognition of same-sex unions, as an “uneasy truce” between campaigners for equality and people who sought to uphold the religious significance of marriage.

This is all too close for comfort, as they say.

A similar situation will - if things continue to progress as they are - come upon us in the United States of America, all in the name of tolerance.  But one group will not be tolerated: those who hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In Illinois, when the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act was passed, we were told it was not an attempt to push the Church out of marriage and that those advocating for the passage of the Act only wanted the same rights of married couples.  All of these civil rights they could already have if they simply went through the appropriate channels and filed the proper papers.  But that wasn't enough.

Neither will simply forcing Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoptions be enough for them.  As long as the Church stands against their agenda and goals, they will not rest.  The next assault in Illinois will be as in Britian; it will be an assault against marriage.

Poll Alert

The State Journal-Register has posted a poll on it's web site asking, "Who will prevail in the legal battle between Catholic Charities and the state of Illinois over adoption and foster care placements?"
Two possible answer are given:

Catholic Charities. They should be able to continue serving the state while upholding their religious beliefs.

Or:

The state of Illinois. If Catholic Charities won't serve everyone, the state should have the right to cut ties.

Please, go vote for Catholic Charities and support the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

As of 12:55 p.m. on 31 August, the results were 53% in favor of Catholic Charities and 46% in favor of the State of Illinois (I know it doesn't equal 100%; I didn't make the poll). 

Paprocki: Catholic principles 'under attack' by State

In a recent interview, His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, sees, in light of the recent actions of the State of Illnois against Catholic Charities, a "growing secularism in our society."

From the State Journal-Register, with my emphases:

It seems as if the state is at war with the Catholic community, Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki says.
“In many ways, it does certainly feel like our principles and our ways of acting within our religious beliefs are under attack,” Paprocki said in an interview.
The decision by the Department of Children and Family Services to sever its foster care and adoption services contracts with Catholic Charities is just one example, Paprocki said. He also cited an order by ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception.  The order was struck down by a Sangamon County judge in April.
“We have concerns down the line about requirements mandating contraception in insurance plans and ultimately even requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortion,” Paprocki said.
Following Circuit Judge John Schmidt’s ruling that Catholic Charities does not have a legal right to extension of its state contracts to oversee foster and adoptive children, Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky said “important elements of the political establishment in the state of Illinois are now basically at war with the Catholic community.”
Asked last week if he agreed, Paprocki said, “It feels like it.
“We’re simply trying to continue to do the social services we’ve done for decades,” he said. “Suddenly, they are telling us we can’t do that anymore. We are concerned that this is not just an isolated case. We see a growing secularism in our society.”

Paprocki agreed that nobody has a right to a state contract. But that is only part of the argument, he said.
“The point is that, although nobody has a right to contract with the state, on the other hand, the state is not free to refuse to contract for basically illegal reasons,” Paprocki said.
Just as an employer can’t refuse a job to someone because of race, he said, the state can’t refuse to issue a contract to an organization because of the group’s religious beliefs.
“Our argument is the state has chosen an illegal reason not to contract with us,” Paprocki said. “It’s our religious practice not to place children with unmarried, co-habitating couples. This is not aimed at the homosexual community. We believe that people who are co-habitating without marriage are living in a sinful condition.”
Attorneys representing Catholic Charities in its lawsuit have said they are going to ask Schmidt to stay his ruling pending further legal action. They also said they will ask Schmidt to reconsider “whether the state can refuse to contract on the basis of exercise of religion.”

Paprocki: recent court decision marks a sad day

Yesterday I noticed that Bishop Paprocki issued a statement on August 19th following the recent court decision against Catholic Charities.  His statement follows, with my emphases:

The court's decision yesterday regarding Catholic Charities' foster care services marks a sad day for the children of Illinois.

The State of Illinois is actively taking steps to push Catholic Charities of the Dioceses of Belleville, Joliet, Peoria and Springfield out of foster care services, which would end a partnership that dates back to the mid-1960s with the creation of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. The message from the state of Illinois is simple: Organizations that only place children in accord with their religious beliefs are barred from state contracts – Catholics need not apply.

Catholic Charities has been caring for vulnerable children for more than 100 years, leading to DCFS’ current success rate.

As we consider the next steps in our course of action, we pray for the children and for our dedicated employees who may be so adversely affected by this decision.

Judge rules against Catholic Charities

While the Bishop and I were in Madrid for the World Youth Day 2011 (more on that later), we received disappointing news regarding the declaratory judgment requested regarding the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act.

The State Journal-Register reports that Judge Schmidt rules against Catholics on foster care.  The text of the article follows, with my emphases and comments:

Forty years of contracts with state government don’t mean Catholic Charities has a legal right to continue those contracts [this wasn't the reason the judgment was sought; the State seems to have changed its line of argumentation], Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled Thursday.


State officials did not renew the contracts this year, 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 [which we still believe is in keeping with the recent Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act].

The Department of Children and Family Services contends Catholic Charities’ policy violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act and in June ended its contracts with the charity in the Springfield, Peoria, Joliet and Belleville dioceses [the Act itself says the contrary is true, that the policy of Catholic Charities is, in fact, in keeping with the Act].

Attorneys for Catholic Charities said they are reviewing the ruling. Schmidt’s decision could be appealed.

In its lawsuit to force the state to renew the contracts, Catholic Charities contended Illinois’ new civil unions law allows religious organizations to not recognize civil unions if it conflicts with their religious beliefs [which it does; it is, afterall, the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act].

Schmidt’s ruling did not address the civil unions issue. He said the issue is whether Catholic Charities has a vested right to contract with the state [it's an interesting way not to have to address the concern that was raised].

No ‘protected property interest’

“The fact that (Catholic Charities) have contracted with the state to provide foster care and adoption services for over forty years does not vest (them) with a protected property interest,” Schmidt wrote in his three-page opinion. “No citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government.”

The state has never forced Catholic Charities to accept state contracts, Schmidt wrote [but the law doesn't change the contracts that were already signed for the coming year].

At a hearing Wednesday, assistant attorney general Deborah Barnes argued the state has the right to set contract terms within the limits of the law [but the law doesn't contradict the position of Catholic Charities].

A spokesman for Catholic Charities issued a brief written statement in response to Schmidt’s decision.

“The ruling does not address Catholic Charities’ contention that the state of Illinois cannot refuse to contract with someone based on that person’s exercise of religion,” the statement said. “Thomas More Society attorneys are reviewing the ruling and considering next actions with Charities.”

The Thomas More Society represented Catholic Charities in its lawsuit.

Steven Roach, executive director for Catholic Charities of the Springfield Diocese, said the diocese has about 300 children in its care in 28 counties. He declined to comment on Schmidt’s opinion.

2,000 children

Statewide, Catholic Charities oversees the care of about 2,000 children, said DCFS spokesman Kendall Marlowe. He said the agency already had begun the process of transferring those cases to other child welfare agencies and will continue to do so.

“We will not take precipitous action,” he said. “We send in a team that reviews each and every case. We’re going to do it in a deliberate and careful way.”

The transition also does not necessarily mean children will be removed from one foster home to another, he said.

“We’ve had other child welfare agencies go out of business,” he said. “In those transitions, we’ve seen, generally speaking, foster parents want to continue even if it is with another agency.”

In many instances, he said, caseworkers from an agency dropping the services are hired by another agency assuming the cases. That happened earlier this year, when the Rockford diocese ended its contract with DCFS over the same issue, he said.

Fully transferring all of the cases to new agencies could take until fall, unless further legal action puts a halt to the transition, Marlowe said.

***
What’s next?

Attorneys for Catholic Charities will have to determine their next legal step. One option would be to appeal Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt’s decision to allow state government not to renew its contract with Catholic Charities.

The Department of Children and Family Services will work on transferring the 2,000 cases now in the care of Catholic Charities to other child welfare agencies.

Catholic Charities 'great for us,' couple says

A Springfield family who recently adopted three boys through Catholic Charities calls the agency “great for us.”

Dustin and Tracy Bramer of Springfield previously were foster parents for the three boys, ages 5, 4 and 2, through Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities was always a good advocate for the boys, and the biological parents as well, Dustin Bramer said Thursday.

“They gave the biological parents every opportunity in the world to get their lives back on track before they terminated parental rights,” he said. “Catholic Charities was great for the biological families, they were great for our boys, and they were great for us. We never had any issues with them.”

Bramer said he is concerned that other adoption agencies will be overwhelmed by new cases if Catholic Charities is no longer part of state foster and adoptive children programs.

Bramer is the youth minister at Rochester Christian Church. He and Tracy also have four biological children, with the oldest being 19.

Life Site News reported a major blow [was] dealt to Catholic Charities in Illinois over homosexual adoption.  Their text follows, with my emphases and comments:

Springfield, Illinois, August 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Illinois judge has ruled that the state of Illinois may legally refuse to renew its foster care and adoption contacts with Catholic Charities adoption agency over the agency’s refusal to place children with homosexual couples.




Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt on August 18th found that since Catholic Charities are not “required” by the state to perform the services of foster care and adoption, they have no “legally recognized property right to renew their contracts.”



This is the latest ruling against Catholic Charities affiliates that have refused to bow to state pressure and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.





Bishop Daniel Jenky says that sections of the Illinois political establishment "are now basically at war with the Catholic community."While the case was handled by the judge as a matter concerning “legally recognized protected property interest,” Tom Brejcha, the lawyer for Catholic Charities, argues that the real issue is being ignored: religious liberty.



“There’s a lot to argue about here,” Brejcha said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “The exercise of religion cannot be substantially burdened. That alone could carry the case for Catholic Charities. A lot of these people involved feel they are compelled by their faith. The burden is pretty substantial.”



In response to the new ruling, Catholic Charities told LifeSiteNews that they “will review the judge’s ruling and we will confer with our Bishops, Boards and attorneys to determine our future course of action.”



Hours after the ruling, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, of Peoria, stated in a press release that he was “extremely disappointed” with it.



The bishop said that he was “simply astonished that the politicians of the state of Illinois seem to be unwilling to grant the same kind of religious accommodations that have been granted in the states of New York and Rhode Island regarding their establishment of civil unions.”



“[I]mportant elements of the political establishment in the state of Illinois are now basically at war with the Catholic community and seem to be destroying their institutions,” said Bishop Jenky.



Prior to the passing of the state’s civil unions act, its promoters had actively campaigned to dispel the “myth” that it would affect faith-based adoption agencies.



However, many religious commentators had warned that the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, which came into effect last June, would inevitably be used as a weapon against religious agencies that offer civil services funded by the state.



Jack Smith, who writes on The Catholic Key Blog for the Diocese of Kansas City, wrote earlier this year that with “civil unions now the law [in Illinois], civil unions will also be the hammer against religious freedom.”



“Everywhere civil unions or same-sex marriages have become the law, they have been used to shut Catholic Charities out of adoption and foster care services. And there is no reason to expect they won’t be used to erode other religious freedoms down the road,” said Smith.



Erwin McEwen, director of Illinois’ Department of Children and Family Services, informed Catholic Charities in July that the state would not accept their contracts for the fiscal year of 2012 because they had “made it clear” that they would not comply with the new civil unions Act.



Catholic Charities fought this decision, however, and the state backed down after a state judge issued an emergency motion preventing the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) from ending its contract with the Catholic Charities. That emergency motion is overruled by the judge’s latest decision against Catholic Charities.

Tribune poorly reports ACLU joins suit against Catholic Charities

The Chicago Tribune carries a sloppy story that the "ACLU joins suit against Catholic Charities."  Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't hop on board sooner.

Some weeks ago a lawyer-friend of mine sent a note to say the ACLU contacted my friend looking for an attorney who a had a same-sex couple ready to sue Catholic Charities.  I was surprised the ACLU hadn't already lined up such a couple.

The Tribune's poorly written and researched story follows, with my emphases and comments:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois got the go-ahead Monday to intervene in a lawsuit and join the state's battle against Catholic Charities' policy of turning away prospective parents who are in civil unions [this is a terrible article from the beginning.  Catholic Charities does not place children with cohabiting couples, regardless of whether or not they are in a civil union.  Where is a mention of the Relifious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act?  Why is it never mentioned in this article?].

Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria, Springfield and Belleville filed the lawsuit this summer, asking a Sangamon County judge to uphold their policy of providing publicly funded foster care and adoption services only to married couples and single parents living alone [hence the term 'single'], while referring couples in civil unions to other agencies [what is the argument behind the suit?  Why is this not mentioned?].

On Monday, the judge allowed the ACLU of Illinois to intervene after lawyers argued that allowing Catholic Charities to reject [an application or request may be declined, but no one is rejected; Catholic Charities has referred to inquirers to other agencies, of which they are many in that State] parents based on sexual orientation or religious belief violates the federal consent decree designed to improve conditions for children in the care of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services [they are not declined based on sexual orientation or religious beliefs; rather Catholic Charities acts in a manner consistent with it's own religious beliefs, as guaranteed by the First Amendment].

ACLU lawyers said the consent decree requires the state to consider nothing but the "best interests of the child," not the religious beliefs of a private foster agency, when making decisions about placement [and by not placing children with cohabiting couple Catholic Charities is considering the best interest of the children].

"Catholic Charities is ruling out possible parents based on factors that have nothing to do with the best interests of the children [study and study will disagree with this lawyer's strange logic]," said ACLU lawyer Karen Sheley.

The ACLU also intervened on behalf of Sarah Riddle and Katherine Weseman, a Champaign couple in a civil union who would like to become foster parents and adopt children [So be it.  As many as fifty other agencies will help them.  They are not being refused an adoption].

Riddle, 33, said that although children are not in the couple's immediate future, she and her partner are taking action to make sure the process runs smoothly when they are ready.

"It's best to make sure you have a plan in place and you're fighting for the things you believe in so when you actually need them, they're there," Riddle said. "We're making sure when we're moving forward, we're absolutely in a place where we can make it happen." [Ah, yes.  Can you sense the love they have for the children they hope to adopt?]

Tom Brejcha, an attorney for the Thomas More Society who is representing Catholic Charities, said Riddle and Weseman could apply to Catholic Charities to become foster parents and would not be questioned about their sexual orientation, he said. They would be referred elsewhere only if they volunteered that information.

Brejcha questioned why the couple would go to a Catholic agency when there are many agencies that don't have religious objections to unmarried couples [a very good question, indeed].

"No one is preventing them from being foster parents if that's what they want," Brejcha said. "They don't like Catholic Charities' ideological position — a position held for 2,000 years. It doesn't make sense."

Shutting down Catholic Charities is "certainly the antithesis of serving Illinois' children who are abused and neglected," Brejcha said.

Riddle said the issue isn't her disagreement with Catholic principles [so what is the problem?].

"We would have plenty of options as parents. These are kids who don't have options," Riddle said. "We have seen the good that a good foster parent can do for children. This is very meaningful for us."  [Clearly.]

BREAKING NEWS: Belleville seeks to join suit

The State Journal-Register carries the news that Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois - of the Diocese of Belleville - wants to join the suit in which the Dioceses of Springfield in Illinois, Peoria and Rockford are seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act.

The brief story follows:

Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois is asking to join a lawsuit against the state over foster placements to gay couples.

The organization is affiliated with the Belleville diocese.
The Department of Children and Family Services ended its foster-care and adoption services with Catholic Charities July 1 because it says the group discriminates by not allowing gay couples to take kids.

Catholic Charities sued, representing dioceses in Springfield, Peoria and Joliet. The lawsuit says the state's civil unions law does not require it to place children with unmarried couples.

The civil union law took effect June 1.

Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt has ruled that the foster-care contracts must stay in place until an August hearing.

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.”

Did the State of Illinois lie about the civil unions bill?

Writing for the Catholic Key Blog of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Jack Smith argues that the State of Illinois lied about the Civil Unions Law.

His text follows, with my emphases:

When a bill creating civil unions in Illinois was signed by Governor Pat Quinn in January, sponsors and activists for the law agreed that its provisions would not affect religious social service or adoption agencies. Now, quite predictably, it has. Today, the AP reports that Governor Quinn has determined the State of Illinois can no longer contract with Catholic Charities for adoption and foster care services because the charities don’t comply with the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act.


The reason for “religious freedom” preceding “civil union” in the title of the law now appears to have been entirely cosmetic. Opponents of the bill charged that creating civil unions would impinge on religious freedom. The bill’s proponents went out of their way to say it would not – in order to get it passed.

According to an op-ed in the Quad City Times,

The bill sponsor, Sen. David Koehler, clearly promised in his Senate floor testimony that the law would not impact “the social services” or the “adoption agencies” of religious organizations.

Equality Illinois, a major proponent of the bill, even put together a widely distributed Q & A on the bill intended to dismiss “myths” about the bill’s intentions. One question read:

5. How would the Act affect religious affiliated adoption agencies?

Answer: The Act would not impact faith-based adoption agencies or adoption procedures. The Act does not amend the Adoption Act, which governs both public and private adoption agencies.

But then the bill passed, and religious freedom went out the window as some in state government, the Catholic governor included, began to argue that the passed bill does not in fact exempt Catholic Charities from facilitating adoptions to those in civil unions.

The position of the state government on the religious freedom provisions of the law was so contrary to the rhetoric leading up to the bill’s passage, that in April, original sponsor Sen. David Koehler introduced an amendment to make it absolutely clear that:

“A child welfare agency that is religiously based or owned by, operated by, or affiliated with a bona fide religious organization may decline an adoption or foster family home application, including any related licensure and placement, from a party to a civil union if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Under fire for introducing the amendment, Koehler said he had to keep the guarantee he made on religious freedom when he was championing the civil unions bill. “No group should have to go against what its religious principles were and that included organizations that were involved in adoption,” he told WBEZ radio.

Koehler’s amendment failed 7-6 in the Senate’s Executive Committee. For Illinois civil union supporters, the time for supporting guarantees of religious freedom had passed. With civil unions now the law, civil unions will also be the hammer against religious freedom that anybody could have predicted they would be. Everywhere civil unions or same-sex marriages have become the law, they have been used to shut Catholic Charities out of adoption and foster care services. And there is no reason to expect they won’t be used to erode other religious freedoms down the road.

Other states would do well to consider Illinois’ experience. When it comes to the hierarchy of freedoms in a post-civil union/same-sex marriage state, the desires of same-sex couples for affirmation trumps every other right – no matter how well you craft your legislation. It is far safer not to consider civil unions at all.

Capello tip to Father John Malloy, S.D.B. at A Shepherd's Voice.

Jenky and Paprocki respond to favorable court decision

From the Catholic News Service comes this story on two Illinois Bishops' responses to Judge Schmidt's decision yesterday in favor of Catholic Charities, with my emphases:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Two Catholic bishops praised an Illinois judge's ruling late July 12 that the state's termination of its contracts with Catholic agencies providing foster care and adoption services risks causing "irreparable injury" to the nearly 2,000 children involved.


Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria, Ill., said he was encouraged by Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt'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."

Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield said he was grateful "for the sake of the children in our Catholic Charities foster care program" that the services will be allowed to continue.

Schmidt issued a temporary injunction allowing Catholic Charities agencies in the dioceses of Peoria, Springfield, Joliet and Belleville to continue providing state-funded foster care and adoption services, despite July 8 letters to each agency from Erwin McEwen, director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, effectively canceling those contracts as of June 30.

McEwen said the contracts would not be renewed because each agency "has made it clear that it does not intend to comply with the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act."

The law, which took effect July 1, permits civil unions for same-sex couples and stipulates that they would have the same rights and benefits as married couples in the state, including the right to adopt and provide foster care. July 1 also marked the beginning of fiscal year 2012, when the new contracts would have begun.

The Catholic agencies only place children with married heterosexual couples or single people who are not cohabiting. State officials have said the law would not allow the agencies to refer same-sex couples to other agencies, as they have done for decades.

The decision will affect 1,997 children in foster care -- including some in the process of being adopted -- under the supervision of the four Catholic Charities agencies, said Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. But the change will only be in the agency supervising their care, not the home in which they are placed, he added.

He said approximately 15,000 children are presently in foster care in Illinois.

"We cannot enter into a contract with anyone who has publicly, affirmatively stated that they will not follow the law in performing services under the contract," Marlowe told Catholic News Service before the judge's decision July 12. "These agencies have made their choice, and we must now plan to transition these cases with the least disruption possible for the kids."

But Bishop Paprocki said in his statement that "it is the state of Illinois that is violating ... the law by seeking to force us to act against our religious beliefs."

The law specifically says that "nothing in this act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body," he noted.

"If these services of religious organizations like Catholic Charities are terminated, it would be the children who would suffer because some politicians have put their political agenda ahead of the best interest of the children, who have been served by the top-quality, nurturing care of Catholic Charities since 1921," Bishop Paprocki said.

In issuing the injunction, Schmidt said in his Springfield court, "We're not going to be removing children from homes. I can't be any clearer. ... We're going back to June 30."

The judge set the next hearing in the matter for Aug. 17.

Marlowe said two other faith-based agencies had been following the practice of referring same-sex couples to other agencies for foster care and adoption services.

Lutheran Child and Family Services has stated that it will abide by the civil unions law and will continue its contract with the state, he said. Evangelical Child and Family Agency has said it will not comply with the civil unions law and its contract is "under review," Marlowe said.

Catholics and foster kids in Illinois

Over at Get Religion, Bobby Ross, Jr. examines the present situation regarding Catholics and foster kids in Illinois.

Go read his post; it'll be easier than me trying to copy it here and keep unconfused the distinction between newspaper stories and his comments.

Catholic Charities: The issue at hand is whether or not the religious protections included in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act extends to programs of Catholic Charities and other faith based organizations

The Catholic Times has an online exclusive story regarding the recent judgment in favor of Catholic Charities, with my emphases and comments (comments I have repeatedly made in previous posts will not be restated here):

A Sangamon County judge ruled July 12 that Catholic Charities of the Springfield, Joliet and Peoria diocese may continue to serve children in their foster care and adoption services program.


In the ruling, Judge John Schmidt said the order is temporary until a hearing scheduled for August [17th].

The state of Illinois June 11 had notified Catholic Charities in the Springfield, Joliet, Belleville and Peoria dioceses that they are no longer eligible for state foster care and adoption services contracts.

The Department of Children and Family services notified the Catholic Charities agencies July 8 that current contracts with the state would not be renewed for the new fiscal year.

“Your agency has made it clear that it does not intend to comply with the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act,” DCFS said in the notice. “That law applies to foster care and adoption services. Thus, there is no meeting of the minds as to the FY12 Foster Care and Adoption Contracts.”

The law legalizing civil unions in Illinois went into effect June 1. Catholic Charities of the Springfield, Joliet and Peoria dioceses filed the suit in Sangamon County Circuit Court June 7 to ask for a legal declaration confirming that Illinois law protects the right of Catholic agencies not to place children with unmarried, cohabiting individuals.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a union, instituted by God, between one man and one woman and that sex ual activity outside of marriage is contrary to God’s law. The long-standing practice of Catholic Charities has been to place children with married or single, non-cohabiting persons only. Non-married cohabiting couples were referred to other agencies [Note: they were not refused services, but referred to other agencies].

In a July 12 statement, Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Springfield diocese said, “For the sake of the children in our Catholic Charities Foster Care program, I am grateful that Judge John Schmidt of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County has issued a preliminary injunction freezing the State’s contract with Catholic Charities as it was before the State decided to cut it off earlier this month.

“It is tragic that some State officials are moving to push Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoption services by refusing to contract with us. Contrary to statements of certain government officials, the practices of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois fully comply with the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, which includes a provision that says, “Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body,” Bishop Paprocki’s statement continued. “It is the State of Illinois that is violating this provision of the law by seeking to force us to act against our religious beliefs. If these services of religious organizations like Catholic Charities are terminated, it would be the children who would suffer because some politicians have put their political agenda ahead of the best interest of the children, who have been served by the top-quality, nurturing care of Catholic Charities since 1921.”

“We pray for a final outcome of this case that will allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide a faith-based approach to foster care and adoption services in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services,” the bishop’s statement concluded.

Steven Roach, executive director of Catholic Charities for the Springfield diocese, said the issue at hand is whether or not the religious protections included in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act extends to programs of Catholic Charities and other faith based organizations.

“The state’s position is that the only religious protection in the new law relates to not forcing churches to perform religious ceremonies for same-sex couples,” Roach said. “This is a ridiculous argument because no law could ever be passed that could force a church to perform any kind of religious ceremony — that is already constitutionally prohibited. It’s a bit like selling someone a car and telling them you will throw in the steering wheel.

“If the state argues that this is the only religious protection in the new law then they are arguing that in fact there are no religious protections in the new law despite its title,” Roach said.

Roach said that Catholic Charities will argue that the real religious protection in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act is explicitly spelled out in the Senate record.

Roach said that during the debate the bill’s sponsor (Senator David Koehler, D-Peoria) was directly asked if religiously sponsored organizations such as Catholic Charities providing social services are protected from any interference or regulation from the implementation of this new law.

“A definitive, affirmative answer was given by Sen. Koehler who stressed the intent of the bill in no way was meant to negatively impact the activities of religious organizations,” Roach said. “Terminating decades-old contracts with Catholic Charities is certainly a negative impact.”

Roach said he believes the state is basing its actions on a belief that completely ignores the religious protection intent of the new law.

“We vehemently disagree for obvious reasons and that is why we are in court,” Roach said. “The state prematurely decided to terminate contracts with Catholic Charities because it believes our desire to place children in the homes of only married couples and single non-cohabitating individuals is in violation of the new law.

“However, if the court finds Catholic Charities is not in violation of the new law (as we believe) then there obviously is no reason for the state to eliminate Catholic Charities as a valuable resource to address the plight of abused children in Illinois,” Roach said. “This is clearly a matter of the law and we are hopeful that all parties will respect the decision of the court in this case.”

According to DCFS, almost 2,000 children receive services from Catholic Charities in four of the six dioceses of Illinois. In June, 267 children were receiving care through Springfield Catholic Charities.

In 2007, the Archdiocese of Chicago ceased foster care and adoption services due to liability protection issues and the Diocese of Rockford announced May 26 that its Catholic Charities offices would no longer offer state-funded adoptions and foster-care services once the civil unions law took effect.

DCFS refuses to allow Catholic Charities to place a child from another agency

In light of the recent legal suit between Catholic Charities and the State of Illinois, the final sentence of a story in the State Journal-Register ought to be a story in itself.

An unnamed agency has a child to place in a foster home but does not have foster parents available at this time.  The agency sought to place the child through Catholic Charities, who does have foster parents available at this very moment to receive the child, but the Department of Child and Family Services refused to allow Catholic Charities to place the child, even after a Sangamon County judge ruled the State cannot end its contracts with Catholic Charities until the requested declaratory judgment is given.

This should be an outrage to people of all good will.  It clearly shows that DCFS and the State of Illinois is not truly concerned with the welfare of children but only with their own political ideology.

The text of the updated article follows, with my emphases and comments:

Catholic Charities programs in Illinois won a preliminary injunction Tuesday preventing the state from canceling its foster care contracts with the agencies [Notice: the State attempted to cancel its contracts with Catholic Charities; the State made the first move].

"I'm putting a freeze on this case until we can (argue) the issues," Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt said. "We're not going to be removing children from homes."

Schmidt said he was returning the situation to what it was on June 30, before the Department of Children and Family Services terminated contracts it held with Catholic Charities in Springfield, Joliet, Peoria and Belleville.

A total of 1,997 children have been placed in foster homes through the four agencies.

Schmidt scheduled another hearing on the case for Aug. 17.

DCFS terminated foster care contracts it had with Catholic Charities in the four dioceses because the agencies had made it clear they would not place foster children in the homes of couples who are in civil unions, which became legal in Illinois June 1 [Catholic Charities has not placed children in the homes of cohabiting couples and has never had to do so].

Catholic Charities said its position is a matter of religious principle. Representatives say Catholic Charities does not place children in the homes of any unmarried couples.

"This restores some hope for us continuing our relationship with the state," said Steven Roach, executive director for Catholic Charities of the Springfield Diocese [though the final sentence of this article suggests the State is unwilling to work with Catholic Charities].

Attorneys for Catholic Charities have argued that a clause in the law allows religious organizations not to recognize civil unions if it conflicts with their religious beliefs [Curiously, this clause has not been quoted yet in an article; I suppose it's easier to ignore the actual law.  The clause states: "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body."  That seems pretty straight forward].


“It is the state of Illinois that is violating this provision of the law by seeking to force us to act against our religious principles,” said Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki in a statement.

Assistant Attorney General Deborah Barnes argued that the state isn't forcing the agencies to accept state contracts [but the State has tried to refuse to honor its contracts].

"The government isn't compelling them to take these contracts," Barnes said. "The state has chosen not to renew voluntary contracts. Contracts are not renewed automatically."

Catholic Charities lawyers said the contracts require 30 days notice of cancellation, which did not happen.

Barnes said children placed in Catholic Charities foster homes are not at risk.

"These children are not going to be ripped out of homes," she said. "The facts show no emergency."

Roach, though, said his organization was approached by another agency because it needed to place a child in a foster home and had none available. Catholic Charities was able to arrange a placement, Roach said, but DCFS refused to allow it.

Why is this line sentence not a front page story in and of itself?