Bishops' gay ban may cost millions

The decision by the state's Catholic bishops to seek to exclude gays and lesbians from adopting through Catholic social service agencies could imperil millions of dollars in donations from corporations and philanthropies that have their own nondiscrimination policies to abide by.

''It's definitely a concern," said Jeff Bellows, a spokesman for the United Way of Massachusetts Bay, which was the largest private donor to Catholic Charities of Boston last year with a gift of $1.2 million. ''We have an antidiscrimination policy in accordance with the law and to protect the freedom of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable."

If the bishops halt gay adoptions by Catholic Charities, the United Way board will seriously review continued funding, said Bellows. Like many of today's philanthropic groups, United Way requires affiliated agencies to sign pacts that they will be open to accepting everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, among other factors.

These matters are taken seriously, he said. In 2000, the United Way in the Boston area stopped funding the local Boy Scouts because of a policy of barring gay scout leaders. The United Way restored funding two years later when the Scouts agreed not to discriminate against gays.

The bishops have said that Catholic Charities, the social service arm of the Catholic Church, is important to their religious mission to help the needy. Catholic Charities relies heavily on private contributions from corporations, foundations, and individual donors. In the last fiscal year, it received $6.6 million -- or 24 percent of its total revenue -- from these private sources.

Questions about the fund-raising impact on Catholic Charities come at a time when the bishops have yet to announce how they plan to seek a waiver from the state's antidiscrimination laws, which require them to accept gays as potential adoptive parents. The bishops have said that Vatican doctrine calls gay adoptions ''gravely immoral," and that the constitutional right to religious freedom entitles them to be exempted from placing children in gay households.

Governor Mitt Romney said last week he cannot issue an executive order exempting them, and suggested the bishops file new legislation to request a waiver. Top lawmakers, however, have said such a bill has no chance of passing. That leaves the bishops with the option of waging a court challenge.

In 1987, in response to state antidiscrimination rules that had just taken effect, Catholic Charities of Boston began accepting adoption applications from gays and lesbians. Since then, it has placed 13 children with gay couples, only a fraction of the 720 children for whom it has found adoptive homes, said spokeswoman Virginia Reynolds. And it was not until 1997 that it finalized its first gay adoption.

As of late last week, it was unclear whether the agency was continuing to accept gays who apply to be adoptive parents. In the last few months, Catholic Charities officials insisted that any gay applicant could apply as before. But late last week, when asked whether a gay applicant would be accepted, they declined to give a yes or no answer.

''We're working to fulfill our responsibility to civil society and the church," said Reynolds, who declined to elaborate further.

The bishops' plan to seek an exemption may have already undermined the morale of one strong pool of fund-raising support -- the lay board of Catholic Charities dominated by some of Boston's top business leaders.

Eight board members of the 42-member board of Catholic Charities, including some of the city's top business and media leaders, resigned last week to protest the bishops' plans. They were among those who voted unanimously last December to continue gay adoptions, saying many gays and lesbians have proven to be exemplary parents who took in some of the toughest foster children.

One of the former board members, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid antagonizing the church further, said ''the bishops were warned" that alienating the board may affect the agency's fund-raising, but church officials did not seem moved by this factor.

The board members and their companies have been generous to Catholic Charities. Nearly all of the original 42 members are listed as giving $1,000 to more than $10,000 last year, according to financial statements for Catholic Charities. Many help run companies, including Citizens Bank, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, HP Hood, Ernst & Young, and Rodman Ford Sales, that each donated more than $10,000, records show.

Though some members worry about low morale on the board, Brian Leary, a former television reporter who is now a law partner at Gadsby Hannah, said he believes it would be tragic if donors reduced their support of Catholic Charities.

Leary, one of the members who resigned, said he wants to make sure his support of the agency's good works, including its food pantries, immigration services, substance abuse programs, and day-care centers, remains strong.

''How can you punish the recipients of immigration services?" said Leary. ''Don't let down the beneficiaries of Catholic Charities to make a public statement."

He said, however, that he was deeply disappointed that the bishops never established any communication with the board. He has asked that Catholic officials consider creative alternatives to satisfy all sides, such as setting up an affiliated agency that could handle adoptions for Catholic Charities, but would be distant enough not to fall under direct control of the archdiocese.

John Shaughnessy Sr., a board member regarded by his colleagues as one of the most conservative members, voted in favor of allowing Catholic Charities to continue gay adoptions, but said he did not want to do anything to undermine the agency's humanitarian mission.

In an interview before the board's meeting on Tuesday, he said he wants to support Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, who he said ''exudes holiness" and has no choice but to go along with the Vatican's ban on gay adoptions. ''He can't make his own calls on this," Shaughnessy said.

The consequence of the bishops' decision, however, is that many philanthropic institutions may have to pull funding because they are bound by internal antidiscrimination rules, said Micho Spring, the former chairwoman of United Way of Massachusetts Bay and chairwoman of New England Weber Shandwick Worldwide, a public relations firm. She was also one of board members who resigned.

''A lot of our key partners will not be able to fund us [Catholic Charities] if we will not conform to their policy," she said.

Newell Flather, head of Grants Management Associates, a philanthropic advisory firm, said that corporations and foundations, especially those helping the disadvantaged, shy away from giving to programs that appear to favor one group over another.

Officials at some nonprofit groups said that they oppose the bishops' position, but will probably continue to support Catholic Charities because their money goes to non-adoption work.

Project Bread, which last year gave $83,000 to Catholic Charities' food pantries, would continue funding because of Catholic Charities' strong track record in helping the hungry, said Ellen Parker, Project Bread's executive director. The Boston Bar Foundation, which last year gave Catholic Charities $17,500 for an immigration legal services clinic, would also probably continue support, said its spokeswoman, Bonnie Sashin.

She added that the bar association may want to express its displeasure with the bishops' stance in some other way because her group has ''a proud history of wanting to ensure civil rights for all people."

Dr. Albert Bundy, 54, a Boston radiologist who calls himself a practicing Catholic, said he has decided to halt his contributions to Catholic Charities, which totaled a few thousand dollars in the last few decades. He said he had believed Catholic Charities was an independent agency helping the needy, but the latest decision demonstrated to him that the agency is controlled by the archdiocese, which he described as ''out of touch" with the realities of today's complex society. Gay people, he said, have shown themselves to be good parents, particularly to some of the neediest children.

''Everyone agrees that it's best to be raised by a mother and father. But many children already are not raised by both parents," he said. ''The ideal situation does not always exist," he said.

Patricia Wen can be reached at wen@globe.com.