America becoming ‘much less friendly’ to religious freedom: archbishop issues stark warning

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freedom of pizza is the right to order/make/eat whatever kind of pizza you want. It also includes the right to not eat any pizza at all. Freedom of pizza includes freedom from pizza. No one can force you to eat it.

Freedom of religion is the right to practice whatever religion you want. It also includes the right to not practice any religion at all at all. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. No one can force you to practice.

I think not believing in God is a terrible mistake and may have severe consequences, but that doesn’t effect the laws of this country. The statute is crystal clear.

As far as this issue is concerned, institutions that accept government funding must follow the rules that come with that funding. Discrimination based on age, race, or creed is not permitted. This nation is 76% Christian, but the government is secular. If it seems like its secularism is something new then its only because in the past nobody bothered to enforce it the way they do today.

The bottom line here is that religious institutions are free to conduct their (legal) activities however they wish, but the moment they accept government funding they are subject to the rules of secularism. In other words, no discriminating based on religion.
 
SJP51WDR said:
As far as this issue is concerned, institutions that accept government funding must follow the rules that come with that funding.
Click to expand...
Better known as the Golden Rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

This is the best evidence possible for why no Church-related organization should ever accept even a penny of government funding. Ever. Under any circumstances.
 
While I don’t think we have gone too far as far as eliminating religious freedom goes, I do think it could happen in the future. Yes, secularism has made a lot of inroads into religion and especially the government. However, Americans still have plenty of freedom when it comes to religion. I just think that occasionally the secularization gets taken a little too far.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
That’s not the law.

That is directly contrary to legal precedent. There’s a big difference between teaching theology to kids and driving a truck.

That’s not true at all. There’s nothing immoral about our freedom of religion precepts.
Click to expand...
Actually, Catholic schools and hospitals will hire non-Catholic teachers and staff who will sign a conscience clause, just like any other employee. Therefore, I see no reason why Catholic Charities wouldn’t hire a non-Catholic employee like any other Catholic entity.

However, adoption is run by the State and regulated by the State, because it is a legal arrangement. Catholic Charities cannot regulate adoptions and cannot enforce any laws(just like the Catholic Church cannot enforce any laws). The State can and does.
 
markomalley said:
As also stated by Archbishop Chaput, the mission of Catholic charities (not just speaking of the organization Catholic Charities, but of any Catholic charitable organization) is to spread the Gospel. The work of those organizations is to bring the love of Jesus Christ to a wounded world.
“Everything in Catholic social ministry begins and ends with Jesus Christ,” he said. “If it doesn’t, it isn’t Catholic. And if our social work isn’t deeply, confidently and explicitly Catholic in its identity, then we should stop using the word 'Catholic.’ It’s that simple.”
They feed the hungry as an expression of their love of Christ. They clothe the naked as an expression of their love of Christ. Etc. They minister that love not for the end of putting food in the stomach of the hungry and clothes on the back of the naked, but as a method to bring the hungry and the naked to Christ.
“To be authentic, Christian charity must be free and must be motivated to share God’s love with others, in addition to offering material aid,” he said.

Where does sharing the faith come in?

Archbishop Chaput proposed that “Christian charity doesn’t require that we proselytize, that we speak out loud about our love for Jesus Christ and his love for us, in every circumstance. Sometimes, for prudential reasons, this is unwise. And Christian truth, even when openly professed, should never be offered in a coercive way.”

"But," he added, "where possible and fruitful, acts of Christian charity should clearly witness our Catholic faith and our love for Jesus Christ."
If the END was to feed and clothe (etc.), then there would be no issue with hiring people of other faiths and even atheists, but that is not the end of the work. The end of the work must always be Christ and the Faith He revealed to His apostles and preserved by the Catholic Church. Thus, it is most appropriate to have workers in that field who are capable and willing to witness that faith.

This is the part of “social justice” work not grasped by far too many “social justice” advocates. They see the material as the “end” and not as the “means” to achieve the spiritual end.
Click to expand...
Yes, and when the state takes action against Churches, it is attacking religious freedoms that are supposed to be protected.

You know, it really surprises (though it probably should not) that so few people care the Catholic Church is having its rights attacked like this. Everyone, even atheists, should care when they watch freedoms taken, because if our freedoms can be reduced or taken, than so can there freedoms.
 
markomalley said:
Better known as the Golden Rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

This is the best evidence possible for why no Church-related organization should ever accept even a penny of government funding. Ever. Under any circumstances.
Click to expand...
Frankly I think its a good thing that government funding comes with rules. The same rules that caused trouble for Catholic charities in this story are the same ones that disallow racism and sexism from other organizations. As a taxpayer i wouldnt want my money going to fund any organizations that were discriminating against my fellow citizens.
 
SJP51WDR said:
Frankly I think its a good thing that government funding comes with rules.
Click to expand...
No argument.

But the Church should not accept any government monies, much less beg for them. Because the Church should be able to govern her charities according to the rules of the Church and not concern herself with the rules of the State.

Eventually, as we are seeing right now with homosexual adoption, homosexual marriage, mandates to perform abortions and provide chemical contraceptives, and so on, the rules of the State and the rules of the Church do come in conflict.

Catholic charitable organizations should not have to negotiate those conflicts and should solely concern themselves with maintenance of their Catholic identity.
 
markomalley said:
But the Church should not accept any government monies, much less beg for them. Because the Church should be able to govern her charities according to the rules of the Church and not concern herself with the rules of the State.

Eventually, as we are seeing right now with homosexual adoption, homosexual marriage, mandates to perform abortions and provide chemical contraceptives, and so on, the rules of the State and the rules of the Church do come in conflict.

Catholic charitable organizations should not have to negotiate those conflicts and should solely concern themselves with maintenance of their Catholic identity.
Click to expand...
The problem being that the church doesn’t necessarily have the money to fund the same scope of charity as they did with government funding.

I think the church needs to decide what is more important: Getting aid to people who are in need of it or following the laws of the church. I think that’s a much tougher decision than it appears. If it were Jesus Christ i think he would sacrifice anything to help those in need. He may morally disapprove of someone but he would still help them. I just don’t believe that a black mark on your soul can be gained while endeavoring to help another.
 
SJP51WDR said:
The problem being that the church doesn’t necessarily have the money to fund the same scope of charity as they did with government funding.

I think the church needs to decide what is more important: Getting aid to people who are in need of it or following the laws of the church. I think that’s a much tougher decision than it appears. If it were Jesus Christ i think he would sacrifice anything to help those in need. He may morally disapprove of someone but he would still help them. I just don’t believe that a black mark on your soul can be gained while endeavoring to help another.
Click to expand...
OK, fine.

Reference the bolded text above.

Please provide me some Scriptural or Patristic reference that indicates that Jesus Christ would sanction a violation of the Sacred in order to help those in need. I will even accept any authoritative reference from the Universal Magesterium (that explicitly **excludes **references from the USCCB Justice and Peace Department or any diocesan justice and peace department).

Just one.

(Oh, and if you mention the adulteress incident, please note what He told her: go and sin no more. Not that this would be a sanction for violating the Law anyway, but that is the usual verse quoted by the “social justice” crowd)
 
SJP51WDR said:
The problem being that the church doesn’t necessarily have the money to fund the same scope of charity as they did with government funding.

I think the church needs to decide what is more important: Getting aid to people who are in need of it or following the laws of the church. I think that’s a much tougher decision than it appears. If it were Jesus Christ i think he would sacrifice anything to help those in need. He may morally disapprove of someone but he would still help them. I just don’t believe that a black mark on your soul can be gained while endeavoring to help another.
Click to expand...
Do you believe Jesus would sacrifice His own truths to help people?
 
irishpatrick said:
You know, it really surprises (though it probably should not) that so few people care the Catholic Church is having its rights attacked like this.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the role of freedom of religion in a pluralistic society. You misunderstand the legal boundaries of the profession of a religion. Freedom of religion does not attack the practice of religion.
 
who says that a pluralistic society is what we want and need? The pluralistic society is a very new idea, and probably is not the best for America.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
You misunderstand the role of freedom of religion in a pluralistic society. You misunderstand the legal boundaries of the profession of a religion. Freedom of religion does not attack the practice of religion.
Click to expand...
I guess asking a lawyer to understand a religious statement may be asking too much. But what the Cardinal saying wasn’t a legal brief or commentary but a religious statement, it is irrelevant to continue spouting legalisms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top