Pages

Sunday, May 6, 2018

The Kansas Adoption Bill



The Bill and Controversy

The Kansas legislature just passed a bill that will protect Catholic Charities’ right to provide adoptions pursuant to Catholic teaching. Catholic Charities is now permitted to continue to arrange adoptions for traditionally married men and women in Kansas.  This is a very important religious issue to Catholics, who believe that each member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer... (LBGTQ) community is sacred and worthy of love, respect and civil rights, but that their activities are not in line with God's plan for children and the family. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.   

Who is Really Harmed by the Bill?

Although many are positioning the new adoption law as a defeat for the LBGTQ community, it is more accurately a defeat for cultural-Marxists since the rights of the LBGTQ community to adopt in Kansas have not been curtailed in any way. The vast majority of Kansas adoption organizations continue to provide for LBGTQ adoptions.

The purpose of the opposition to the adoption bill was not so much to enable LGBTQ adoptions as it was to enforce a cultural-Marxist idea that religion may be believed in the individual’s heart and mind, but it may not be expressed in the public sphere. The LBGTQ community knew they would still be able to adopt in Kansas and their individual rights were intact. They opposed the adoption bill because they wanted to prevent anyone from acting in public as if LBGTQ activity was in any way objectionable or open for discussion. They wanted to make Catholic Charities act as if the LBGTQ lifestyle was appropriate.

Soviet Communism and Religion

The Soviet Union Union worked to remove religion from the public sphere throughout its 70-year reign. Though many churches remained open, public activity was completely secular and public expression or proselytizing was punishable by years in slave labor camps. A real inspiring and down-to-earth account of this persecution is seen in the book, With God in Russia by Fr. Walter J. Ciszek, S.J.. Throughout all the arrests and trials endured by Fr. Ciszek, the Soviets never demanded that he renounce his Catholic Faith. They certainly would have been pleased if he did so, but their main concern was not so much what Fr. Ciszek believed. The Soviets just wanted him to refrain from public actions like saying mass, preaching or other parish activities. The Soviet focus was to stamp out religious practice in the public sphere. The cultural-Marxists of today have the similar goal to prevent Catholics form expressing their religious convictions in the public sphere.

Public Religious Expression

Why did the Soviets care so much about public expression of religion? Whitaker Chambers tackled a similar question in his book, Cold Friday. Chambers wrote:

In Witness I sought to make two points which seemed to me more important than the narrative of unhappy events which, time has compelled me to conclude, chiefly interested most readers. The first point had to do with the nature of Communism and the struggle against it. The crux of this matter is the question of whether God exists. If God exists, a man cannot be a Communist, which begins with the rejection of God. But if God does not exist, it follows that Communism, or a more suitable variant of it, is right.

More follows. A man is obligated, if he seeks to give any effect to his brief life, to tear away all mystery that darkens or distorts, to snap all ties that bind him in the name of untruth, to push back all limiting frontiers to the end that man’s intelligence may be free to realize to the fullest of its untrammeled powers a better life in a better world. I did not spell this out in Witness. (Cold Friday, page 68-69) (emphasis added)

The essence of Chamber’s diagnosis of Communism is that it is against the belief in God and that it wants to prevent man from bringing about a better world as a result of this belief. This is precisely the goal of the cultural-Marxists today. They wish to prevent people from acting publicly as if God exists and from doing anything in the public sphere that gives witness to this belief in God. So if you believe that marriage is between a man and women because of God’s design and providence, the cultural-Marxists demand that you adopt to the LBGTQ community even though they can adopt in a hundred other places in Kansas. Their aim is not to permit the LBGTQ community to adopt. Their goal is to prevent believers from doing anything in public that speaks to the reality that God exists and has a plan for the family.   

Today in Kansas, an adoption agency is still permitted to act as if God exists and his existence has ramifications on human behavior and public actions. Although this appears to be a relatively small area of public activity, it is very important to the cultural-Marxists who wish to change human nature and have people publicly act as if there were no God.

2 comments:

  1. You can't have it both ways J. Christopher. Society can't give men and women with perverse sexual desires and gender confusing "civil rights" and "respect" yet at the same time allow those who are Christian use their faith to override civil laws.
    Sorry J. Christopher, but good and evil can't 'coexist'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are confusing ontological and operative dignity. Think of an alcoholic. Their person deserves respect and civil rights. But their actions do not.

      Delete

>