O'Malley stated that a legislative battle would have been costly [and since we're $46.5 million in the red that won't work] and since he wants to convince people that the Church's teachings aren't "vindictive and meanspirited" [we have no guts and don't really believe all that archaic stuff anyway] the Church quit the adoption business. [author's interpretation]
But what I found most interesting was this comment from O'Malley:
O'Malley on fighting the decision legislatively:
"we thought it would only cause greater divisions, more controversy, and in the long run, would only cripple the mission of what we're trying to do."
So instead of a decision that will "cripple the mission" we abandon the mission? And that is supposed to equal success?
So what mission if not providing homes for foster children is more important? Once again you follow the money and realize that what Cardinal O'Malley means when he says "cripple the mission" is "cripple the fundraising" which has become the mission in the Archdiocese of Boston.
Crippled? I think the fundraising is on life support. Crippled would be a big step up.