DENVER, March 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an uncommonly clear and straightforward statement, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver has publicly voiced the problem with homosexual adoption. James H. Mauck, President of Catholic Charities Denver, has stated that, "It is apparent that there are some who wish to compel Catholic Charities to place children with couples whose life choices run contrary to the values and beliefs of Catholic Charities and many other non-profit child placing agencies. This demand is imprudent and wrong."
…Despite all the attention, Mauk is one of the few Catholic leaders in the United States who has stated explicitly the Catholic stand regarding homosexual adoption. He said, "Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver has consistently held the position that children deserve to be placed into homes centered around a wife and mother, and a husband and father. Human history has amply shown that children thrive best when they grow in such a family."
Mauk concluded, "Given that the two parent family is society’s standard, and is also fundamental to our Christian service identity, any change in our practice is unwarranted, especially since many married couples are already seeking adoption and the number of infant children available for adoption has sharply declined because of the drop in relinquishments and the rise in abortions."
Well that is certainly refreshing considering the statements made by Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco. Especially compared to a statement made by Jeffrey Kaneb the new Chairman of CC in Boston.
To be clear, the board’s action is not a protest against the church and its teachings, nor is it a protest against the state and its nondiscrimination laws and regulations. Throughout the process of discussion, the board maintained an unwavering commitment to the agency’s nondiscrimination pledge, as well as an unwavering commitment to the welfare and safety of the children entrusted to the agency.
Unwavering commitment? That is a laugh considering that they had previously placed children with homosexual couples. So their claim of safety doesn’t apply to what then-Cardinal Ratzinger termed as violence.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount