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

[_Abyssinia]

As Catholic social agencies and hospitals in America face growing persecution from secularist, anti-life forces, they must embrace a radical faithfulness and a vigorous Catholic identity if they are to survive, said Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver this week.

“The more that Catholic universities or hospitals mute their religious identity, the more that Catholic social ministries weaken their religious character … the less useful to the Gospel they become,” the archbishop said in a June 21 address to the Catholic Social Workers Association, published by the National Catholic Register.

The challenge of maintaining an authentic Catholic identity is coming more and more to the fore as Christian institutions face growing pressure to accommodate themselves to secularism. Catholic hospitals, for example, have been a major battleground, with many caught engaging in sterilizations, or even abortion.

lifesitenews.com/news/america-becoming-much-less-friendly-to-religious-freedom-archbishop-issues

 

[wisdomseeker]

Could this be a result of many years of mingle and agreeing with the world instead of teaching the Faith? Now we shall suffer the consequences of our actions.

We don’t play wiht God. For too long we have been tought that God doesnt use punishment. I dissagree.

 

[irishpatrick]

Could this be a result of many years of mingle and agreeing with the world instead of teaching the Faith? Now we shall suffer the consequences of our actions.

We don’t play wiht God. For too long we have been tought that God doesnt use punishment. I dissagree.

I agree…unseen consequences…people have no clue.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

So America is not becoming less friendly to religious freedom, secularization is increasingly making inroads into the non-liturgical activities of religions, particularly Catholicism.

Don’t confuse that with a lack of religious freedom.

 

[irishpatrick]

So America is not becoming less friendly to religious freedom, secularization is increasingly making inroads into the non-liturgical activities of religions, particularly Catholicism.

Don’t confuse that with a lack of religious freedom.

When Catholic Charities is forced to dump their adoptions, that is a loss of religious freedoms. There is much more to religion than just liturgical actions.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

When Catholic Charities is forced to dump their adoptions, that is a loss of religious freedoms. There is much more to religion than just liturgical actions.

Sorry, but no. Freedom of religion is not freedom as to how to carry out adoption placements. You are wrong as to law and logic.

 

[Dale_M]

When Catholic Charities is forced to dump their adoptions, that is a loss of religious freedoms. .

But was Catholic Charities forced to stop their adoption services, or did they decide they couldn’t afford to provide them without government contracts? I realize that failure to comply with non-discrimination laws would cost them the contracts, but would it cost them their adoption agency license? In Mississippi, a private adoption agency (Bethany Christian Services) was able to deny Catholic families the ability to adopt children simply because the agency didn’t take government money so didn’t need to meet the non-discrimination laws.

 

[irishpatrick]

Sorry, but no. Freedom of religion is not freedom as to how to carry out adoption placements. You are wrong as to law and logic.

Sorry friend, but I am not wrong. The Catholic Church has been doing adoptions for a very long time, well beyond any civil laws governing them. It is part of the mission of the faith to help children and the poor and needy. When the state places rules (as it now has) on the Church that forces it to accept sinful behaivor, the state is in fact compromising the Church’s religious freedoms. It is simply obvious and I wish the left would just come clean and admit that they are fine with taking away religious freedoms for the sake of their own agendas–that at least would be honest. That is the way of humans, it is fine to take away freedoms from someone else, so long as their freedoms are not taken.

There is also no argument for adoption access in general since most adoption agencies are secular are gays can easily go to those agencies. There is ZERO reason for a gay couple to go to Catholic Charities.

 

[irishpatrick]

But was Catholic Charities forced to stop their adoption services, or did they decide they couldn’t afford to provide them without government contracts? I realize that failure to comply with non-discrimination laws would cost them the contracts, but would it cost them their adoption agency license? In Mississippi, a private adoption agency (Bethany Christian Services) was able to deny Catholic families the ability to adopt children simply because the agency didn’t take government money so didn’t need to meet the non-discrimination laws.

Holding a license without having the means to operate is meaningless.

I do wonder, how will the Church be attacked if they went 100% private with adoptions and simply privately set-up adoptions with faithful Catholics? I am willing to guess that will be stopped as well.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

When the state places rules (as it now has) on the Church that forces it to accept sinful behaivor, the state is in fact compromising the Church’s religious freedoms.

Well, the law and precedent are against you. Do you think that Catholic Charities can refuse to hire a Jewish man as a truck driver and call it freedom of religion?

 

[irishpatrick]

Well, the law and precedent are against you. Do you think that Catholic Charities can refuse to hire a Jewish man as a truck driver and call it freedom of religion?

I think Catholic Charities should be able to hire only Catholics if they want–it is a faith based organization. They should also be able to hire only Catholic men or Catholic women if they feel that fits their mission best. This is no different than when we hear of Catholic teachers in RCC schools being fire for blatantly breaking formal Church teachings. It is a faith-based school and the school has a Christ-centered mission–it should be able to do that within the boundaries of the 1st Amendment (follow our rules and our faith or take a walk).

BTW, being against known legal precedent means nothing…the law is quite immoral regarding abortion and it was quite immoral about slavery as well.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I think Catholic Charities should be able to hire only Catholics if they want–it is a faith based organization.

That’s not the law.

This is no different than when we hear of Catholic teachers in RCC schools being fire for blatantly breaking formal Church teachings.

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

BTW, being against known legal precedent means nothing…

That’s not true at all. There’s nothing immoral about our freedom of religion precepts.

 

[irishpatrick]

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.

Yes, there is something wrong with the modern view. We (and Churches) are suppose to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The state is not allowed to pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When the state puts binds upon Churches regarding adoptions, or upon who they can hire or fire in order to support their faith mission, they are breaching the 1st Amendment rights of those Churches. Just because modern judges have wrongly allowed this, does not make it right…it goes strongly against the 1st Amendment.

Now, again, people need to understand clearly that when one person’s rights are taken, it is really only a matter of time before other rights are taken as well–and sooner or later freedoms you actually care about will be reduced or taken.

Religion must be protected from government intrusion into their faith—not the other way around.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Yes, there is something wrong with the modern view. We (and Churches) are suppose to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The state is not allowed to pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When the state puts binds upon Churches regarding adoptions, or upon who they can hire or fire in order to support their faith mission, …

OK, now you are stating law.

… they are breaching the 1st Amendment rights of those Churches. Just because modern judges have wrongly allowed this, does not make it right…it goes strongly against the 1st Amendment.

And now you are wrong. A particular ministry is not the free exercise of religion. After all, there is a nun who ministers to cats. In my parish’s legal ministry, divorces are performed. A bishop happens to be head of a legal service which does divorces, too. Your view of the free exercise of religion is a faulty *legal *conclusion. Every activity performed by a church ministry is not religion. Simple as that.

Religion must be protected from government intrusion into their faith—not the other way around.

You don’t think the state, for instance, can control how many cats a nun can have in one dwelling?

"A nun with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, Calif., Sister Marijon has over the last six years been drawn to a new calling-caring for homeless, handicapped and abused cats.

She takes them into her home, nurses them back to health and finds them new homes. She has given away more than 600 cats. She remembers each one`s name."

articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-05-18/news/8902020288_1_cats-preferred-dogs-kittens

 

[cyberwolf001]

I must disagree. While Militant Atheist are trying to push religion out of the public square people are pushing back now, HOWEVER this is more of a case of certain faiths complaining that they no longer get special privileges but are treated like everyone else.

 

[irishpatrick]

OK, now you are stating law.

And now you are wrong. A particular ministry is not the free exercise of religion. After all, there is a nun who ministers to cats. In my parish’s legal ministry, divorces are performed. A bishop happens to be head of a legal service which does divorces, too. Your view of the free exercise of religion is a faulty *legal *conclusion. Every activity performed by a church ministry is not religion. Simple as that.

**==> You MUST know how wrong you are. Christ Himself ordered Christians to care for the poor and needy. He also commanded us to let the children come to Him. Those things are part and parcel of the faith. One cannot be a Christian and turn their back to the poor and needy and the children. Catholic Charities offered adoptions because they are caring for children (who in many cases are also quite poor), which is mandated by the faith. It is part of the religion: FACT.

==> Caring for cats is NOT a mandated part of the faith other than we are to care for God’s creation–of course I believe you know that too–you are really desparately reaching here. **

==> Hmm, let’s take this further. Bringing the Eucharist to the sick and infirmed is a ministry of the Church. So is taking food to the poor. So are many other ministries that are part of the faith. Sorry, but religion is NOT just in the pews on Sunday, though it seems that is your definition.

**==> So, it seems that religion from your pov is something that must be housed with the walls of any given Church, and nowhere else is it allowed. **

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Catholic Charities offered adoptions because they are caring for children (who in many cases are also quite poor), which is mandated by the faith. It is part of the religion: FACT.

Sorry, that is not the practice of religion which cannot be hindered by state law.

"Can federally funded senior centers use religious beliefs to discriminate in deciding to whom to provide services?

No. Title 45, Part 87, Section 2, Subsection E of the Code of Federal Regulations says that “an organization that participates in programs funded by direct financial assistance from the [government] shall not, in providing services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief.”

firstamendmentcenter.com/rel_liberty/establishment/topic_faqs.aspx?topic=charitable_choice

 

[Nec5]

No. Title 45, Part 87, Section 2, Subsection E of the Code of Federal Regulations says that “an organization that participates in programs funded by direct financial assistance from the [government] shall not, in providing services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief.”

Actually, it’s Title 48, Part 87.68.9B, Section 4.c, subsection 8h of the code of the federal regulations oversight bureau governing statutes.

 

[JMJSHJ]

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.

Beau, I don’t know what you are trying to say here but I think you are confused about a few things. First off, what the Cardinal is saying isn’t a legal brief but a religious statement. It is irrelevant to this thread by spouting legal precepts. I know you are a lawyer but society’s problems aren’t always solved by man’s laws.

When Man’s laws hinder God’s laws they suppress faithful Catholics ability to participate in society and as such become less friendly to religious freedoms. Its not a hard concept to understand but perhaps because you support Obama which no good Catholic should, you have a natural reaction to anything that upsets the “apple cart”.

 

[markomalley]

I think Catholic Charities should be able to hire only Catholics if they want–it is a faith based organization. They should also be able to hire only Catholic men or Catholic women if they feel that fits their mission best. This is no different than when we hear of Catholic teachers in RCC schools being fire for blatantly breaking formal Church teachings. It is a faith-based school and the school has a Christ-centered mission–it should be able to do that within the boundaries of the 1st Amendment (follow our rules and our faith or take a walk).

BTW, being against known legal precedent means nothing…the law is quite immoral regarding abortion and it was quite immoral about slavery as well.

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.