By MIKE MANNO
Is there truly a campaign to eliminate Catholic adoption agencies, as we’ve reported in this space before? It was only a few weeks ago that I reported on the case in Michigan and also mentioned a case out of Philadelphia where the city had discontinued its contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) to provide foster-care services due to CSS’s policy — in accord with Catholic teaching — not to place children with unmarried cohabitants or same-sex-couples.
And the city’s move came after it had announced the need for more foster families due to over 6,000 children swamping the system. After the city’s human services commissioner, Cynthia Figueroa, had announced her plan to drop its contract with CSS — which was one of approximately 30 such agencies — James Amato, CSS director, met with Figueroa in an attempt to resolve the situation.
During that meeting, this is what the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said happened:
“At this meeting, Amato invoked CSS’s hundred-year history of providing services to the city. Figueroa responded by noting that times had changes over the course of that relationship, that women and African-Americans did not have the same rights when it started, and that she herself could likely not have been in her position a century earlier. Figueroa, who is Catholic and Jesuit-educated, also remarked to Amato that it would be great if CSS could follow the teachings of Pope Francis. Amato later testified that Figueroa specifically stated that CSS should follow Pope Francis as opposed to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia or its Archbishop Charles J. Chaput; Figueroa denied mentioning anyone other than Pope Francis” (emphasis mine).
Now think about this for a minute. Here is a local bureaucrat, claiming to be a Catholic, who perceives some type of theological difference between the Pope and the archbishop over the issue of same-sex couples, and brings it up at a meeting concerning public policy. And to what end? Did she think that her Jesuit education might cause CSS to abandon its position in the matter?
When an accord could not be reached, the city council passed a resolution authorizing the human rights commission to investigate “policies on contracting with social service agencies that…discriminate against prospective LGBTQ foster parents.” It went on to state that “the City of Philadelphia has laws in place to protect its people from discrimination that occurs under the guise of religious freedom” (emphasis mine).
So you be the judge: Does this sound like religious bigotry or not?
Well, according to the court it is not.
CSS had filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction prohibiting the city from abandoning its contract, citing its freedom to put into practice its religious beliefs and the tenets of the Catholic Church. After a three-day hearing, the district court declined to issue the requested order against the city. CSS then filed an appeal with the Third Circuit which, late in April, upheld the decision of lower court, stating:
“At this stage and on this record, we conclude that CSS is not entitled to a preliminary injunction. The city’s nondiscrimination policy is a neutral, generally applicable law, and the religious views of CSS do not entitle it to an exception from that policy. It has failed to make a persuasive showing that the city targeted it for its religious beliefs, or is motivated by ill will against its religion, rather than sincere opposition to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Of course, this is the nub of the case, as the court states: “The Free Exercise Clause does not, however, relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” Thus, if followed to its extreme, nearly every religious accommodation that conflicts with secular values will be outlawed.
Of course no one in good faith would support a religious exception for a pizza parlor or plumber, although some activists insist that is where these exceptions will lead. Unfortunately, today’s policymakers (politicians) cannot see the difference between originations whose activities are intimately involved with their religious beliefs, such as family intimacy, and those businesses that are not so involved, such as the pizza maker.
It’s interesting to note that in this case the city had contracts with 30 such placement agencies and only one other, a Christian agency, Bethany Christian Services, followed practices similar to that of CSS and was also subject to the termination of its contracts. However, according to the court, that agency “has since worked out an agreement with the city and has resumed receiving foster-care referrals.”
And that is what was done in Michigan. A few weeks ago, in the April 11 edition, I wrote about a “Faustian Bargain” in which the anti-Catholic lesbian attorney general “colluded” with the ACLU to obtain a favorable court ruling that would, in effect, bypass the state law that protected agencies, such as CSS, from being required to adopt or provide foster children to same-sex couples.
In that case, the St. Vincent Catholic Charities was in the same situation as CSS except that the lawsuit, filed by the ACLU, was against the State Department of Human Services which administered the foster-care agency contracts. The attorney general then agreed with the ACLU to a stipulated agreement which purports to ban agencies that do not deal with same-sex couples.
Bethany Christian Services in Michigan, like its counterpart in Philadelphia, dropped its Bible-based principles of marriage and caved to the secular gods. LifeSiteNews reported, only days after the Philadelphia ruling, that “Bethany’s decision to jettison its previous support of biblical marriage occurred less than three weeks after Michigan’s increasingly anti-Christian attorney general, Dana Nessel, unilaterally voided a package of bills passed in 2015 by the state legislature that carved out conscience protections for religious adoption agencies.”
Bethany did release a statement: “The mission and beliefs of Bethany Christian Services have not changed. We are focused on demonstrating the love of Jesus Christ by serving children in need, and we intend to continue doing so in Michigan.”
Yeah, sure.
These are hard cases to fight and win; made even harder when your allies surrender and your leadership is in disarray.
(Mike can be reached at: DeaconMike@q.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress