The CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times

Bernard F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us

Danger: Iceberg ahead

In three years of writing CrossCurrents, I have never received as much feedback as I did from my two pieces about gay adoptions (#129 “The Truth about Toby,” and #130 “Prudence and Policy”). This feedback shows just how much the issue matters to people – but it also shows that deeper concerns lie beneath the specific issue of adoptions. It’s one of those “Iceberg issues,” where a much bigger problem is hidden beneath the surface of things.

Some readers simply misunderstood me. One reader, for example, asked why I had “condemned the lives of nearly 6000 parent-less children in Massachusetts.” Of course, I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that kids who cannot be placed with adoptive parents face the prospect of remaining in foster care until age seventeen, at which point the state abandons further responsibility for them. Statistically, a dishearteningly high proportion of these children end up in trouble. This is not my doing; these are simply the facts. I’m afraid the reader was blaming the messenger for the bad news.

Other readers wanted to drag in other issues. One stated, “Although I do not condemn homosexuality as a way of life, I do not agree with homosexual marriages.” But my story was not about married people. It was about children looking for parents and parents looking for children. I did not even state (because I do not know) whether Toby’s parents are married or not. That was not the issue.

Still other readers objected to me criticizing Church officials, labeling my piece “another example of diatribe against the church and its magisterium.” I’m afraid I have found myself in this position too often in the last three years, but once again this is my doing. The hierarchy has inflicted a great deal of deservedly bad press upon itself in recent years. I do not like bearing bad news, but I’m not to blame for it either. The relevant question is, not whether I should speak out, but whether the hierarchy is performing well or badly.

Finally, some readers wanted me to blame the Massachusetts legislature for rejecting a waiver for Catholic Charities Boston, saying that instead of criticizing the hierarchy I should:

Try attacking the 'catholic in name only' state legislature which has essentially given its imprimatur to discrimination against religion. Every effort was made to avoid this by asking the state for a waiver.  Our democratic state apparently doesn't see fit to uphold its own constitution. It is the state that is discriminating against a religion that opposes homosexual marital legitimacy.

This objection is a serious one, and it should help us all ask a key question: what is its stake here? Is it about the church’s freedom to practice religion in its own way? I think not.

The Church is not arguing that it should be able to refuse gay adoptive parents on religious grounds, while non-Catholic agencies continue such placements. Its position is that no one should be placing children with gay parents. Indeed, one writer pointed out that this position goes beyond gay parents to single and widowed parents:

The magisterium and Pope have always taught that children have a "Right" to a mother and a father. Any promotion or acceptance of a lesser state is simply not desirable nor should be promoted…The church has always taught that single parents and widows are also poor placement choices for vulnerable children.

The official argument, in other words, is that children must be placed with a mother and a father. Period. No one (not just Catholics) should approve any other arrangement. We must be very clear about what this implies: it means that a legislative “waiver” or “exemption” for catholic charities is not good enough. The issue is not freedom of conscience or religion. It is not about whether the Church should be exempt from this public policy; it is about changing that policy and replacing it with another one.

The only way Massachusetts (or any other state) could conform to Church teaching here would be to ban anyone (not just Catholics) placing any children with any adoptive parents except a married mother and father.

Church teaching preaches this as the ideal, but that is often simply not possible. In practice, thousands of kids do not have that ideal option no matter what any state legislature says or does. All of their options are less than ideal. In many cases, it comes down to a choice between foster care and adoption by “less-than-ideal” parents.

On this point, my argument was straightforward. The issue for me is “prudential judgment,” as the newly appointed head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William J. Levada, himself said in justifying decisions to place children with gay parents while he was a bishop in California. Asked why he allowed the placement by Catholic Charities in San Francisco of three children who were judged “difficult to place,” he explained that “These placements involved prudential judgments about the needs of the children."

From a prudential viewpoint, the question is this: when the IDEAL arrangement is not available, are specific, individual, hard-to-place children actually better off in foster care, or better off being placed with single, widowed, gay, or unmarried parents? My position has been that, in practice (and presuming the agencies will screen out abusive or dangerous individuals), any home is better than no home, any parents are better than no parents. I have not heard any argument against this.

In any case, arguing for a Catholic Charities exemption is beside the point. The Church’s teaching proposes, in effect, a general ban on such adoptions. Few legislators would support such a ban, because that means consigning children to institutions until they come of age – when they will be set loose with no home and no support system.

Other readers, of course got the point. Some were impressed by Toby’s story: one reader wrote, “I have similar stories ---I hope that people read this and can hear the cries of this wonderful little family.”

Readers were angered by the hierarchy’s actions: “I think Jesus is weeping over this decision by the bishops,” one wrote, while another admitted, “This issue is one that depresses me as much, and maybe more than, others we have faced...it does not have to be.” One reader simply thanked me, calling the story “the best I have read on the subject.”

But one reader in particular spoke with the voice of experience:

I'm an adoptive parent myself, of a "hard-to-place" kid. Of course, in 1968 even healthy babies (if African-American or Asian or Native American) were "hard to place.” At the time the only adoptive parents were those who biologically were unable to have children.

Parents and advocates were the source of change in the standard. Those of us with kids already said: This is stupid.  We'll be a parent to kids who don't otherwise have a place.

The Catholic stance on this is appalling. I'm sure somebody can mount a theological reason for being appalled. Practically it is stupid, and it comes off as the domineering practices of an exclusive male club.

Of course, “gay adoption” is really just the tip of an iceberg. Lurking beneath this discussion’s surface is the weakening influence of the Catholic Church. This weakening is caused, not by anti-Catholicism nor by internal dissent but by the crumbling credibility of the Church’s official leadership. Too often the hierarchy's performance in recent years has reminded us more of the tin-eared, hard-hearted religious leaders we see attacking Jesus in the gospels, rather than the humane and open-hearted embrace of Jesus himself.

I have long argued that Vatican II’s great initiative to renew the Church is deeply threatened unless we can convince the post-baby-boom generation to join the struggle with Catholics old enough to remember Vatican II. But that generation is not about to climb aboard the Barque of Peter when they look out through the stormy waters and discover that everyone sees the iceberg ahead except the men on the bridge.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006

Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com

Dr. Swain’s opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.

Bernie Swain has devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US, Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer, teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.

His writings include Liberating Leadership (Harper & Row, 1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot, Harvard Theological Review, and Liturgy.

A lifelong layperson, he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:

http://www.CrossCurrents.us

CrossCurrents

Is a weekly subscription service for parish websites.

Individual Subscriptions are also available.

For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183