Massachusetts couple denied foster care eligibility because they are believing Catholics

When I first moved to Massachusetts in 1969 from Protestant-dominated Minnesota, I was struck by the awesome power the Catholic church wielded there.  Reverent media attention was afforded the Cardinal, the legendary Richard Cardinal Cushing, who died in 1970 and was replaced by Humberto Cardinal Medeiros. The funeral and selection of a replacement was a major media event in the Boston area. I had never seen the like of it in the Great Plains. There was more than a tinge of class resentment against the formerly dominant Yankees, who were Protestants.

Things have changed in 2023, and it appears that in place of the Roman Catholic faith, a different religion has achieved dominance: the creed of LGBTQWERTY.  The formerly reigning Catholic faith is now considered anathema by at least some official state agencies. How else to understand this from the Wall Street Journal?

The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families’s decision to deny Michael and Kitty Burke’s foster-care application comes less than a decade after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that states could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In a short but tart dissent, Justice Alito raised a red flag that Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the majority opinion, glided over in his enthusiasm for making his own preferences law. Whatever this decision was, Justice Alito warned, Obergefell was not a victory for a live-and-let-live America.

“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” he wrote. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. . . . The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The Burkes are a loving couple who sought to adopt through the state’s foster-care program. Mr. Burke deployed to Iraq as a Marine, while Mrs. Burke is a former paraprofessional for kids with special needs. The stars seemed aligned for a fairy-tale ending for some lucky child.

The Burkes were willing to accept children of any race, culture or ethnicity, as well as some special needs. They would even take siblings. The state, in its assessment of the Burkes, acknowledged the family’s “strengths.” In the license study describing the family, the Massachusetts DCF noted that “Kitty and Mike are devoutly Roman Catholic and not only attend church with regular frequency, they both also work for local churches as musicians.”

Once upon a time that would be an endorsement. Today it’s an indictment. The Burkes were found unfit to be trusted with a child.

The author of their license study took care to note that the Burkes are “lovely people.” But with regard to LGBT issues, she also said “their faith is not supportive and neither are they.” Ultimately the license review team concluded the Burkes “would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA” and the Burkes were rejected.

Mr. and Mrs. Burke (Photo via Beckett Law and the Wall Street Journal)

Has the Roman Catholic hierarchy spoken up in defense of the Burkes and in opposition to this religious bigotry toward its adherents? Are priests warning their parishioners that they are now regarded by their own state government as unfit foster parents?

The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families is a state agency, responsible to the state legislature, which (I assume) includes a number of believing Catholics. Are they going to call in officials from the Department to question them on their evident policy of religious bigotry?

I have to assume that the same level of bigotry applies to believing Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Where is the interfaith effort to address this religious discrimination?

On what basis has the Department of Children and Families created this policy? Where are the comparative studies of fitness and outcomes of religious parents versus homosexualist parents?

My suspicion is that activist employees are imposing this policy without explicit endorsement of their department.  The Massachusetts state legislature needs to get to the bottom of this outrage.

Hat tip: Frank Amato