Yesterday’s posts at Catholic Exchange and Mommy Monsters, as might be expected, produced several heated responses as well as some useful information that I hope to include in future posts. However, there was one bit of information I received today — a letter in NCR from Melinda Selmys (dated 10/5/08) in response to the outrage her original article produced — that I wanted to share here:
Response from Melinda Selmys: “I have had several letters from people who were angered by my column. Specifically, they were upset by my discussion of adoption, and by the claim that there is often lack of similarity between an adopted child and his or her adopted parents that can lead to rifts, lack of understanding, and an inability for a parent to reach their adoptive child.
“My intention was not, in any way, to disparage the love of adoptive parents for their children, nor to imply that there are not circumstances where adoption really is the best option for a child. Certainly, there are many situations where a mother is physically or emotionally incapable of caring for her newborn; there are also situations where a child is left without any biological parents whatsoever.
“The unique sacrifices that adoptive parents are called upon to make in order to care for these children are without a doubt a reflection of the love of Christ.”
Well, isn’t that nice… but does she still consider herself an “anti-adoption advocate”? And is she willing to concede that her original assessment of those poor teenagers just MIGHT be attributed to something other than … adoption?
We don’t need a reassuring pat on the head, Ms. Selmys. We KNOW we’re doing our best at a tough job. We don’t need to be portrayed as selfless saints; trust us, we’re not that. It would be nice, however, if you would address the core issue: Not “hurt feelings,” but outright error.