Archbishop Chaput: 'anti-discrimination' legislation threatens Catholic identity

[stbruno]

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26556

This is going way to far as far as I am concerned. I don’t understand what this has to do with running Catholic Charities or any religious organizations. Truly if this is passed, the people these agencies once served will suffer. How is this going to help anyone?

 

[OriginalJS]

So, if it passes, don’t take government funding. There are always some strings attached, cut them!

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Ok, lets get down to the real meat of this “issue”.

As listed in the Colorado Revised Statutes, characteristics protected by the anti-discrimination regulations include “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry.”

HB 1080, the archbishop believes, would hinder Catholic non-profits from hiring or firing employees based on the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church. Though recognizing that many non-Catholics work at Catholic Charities, Archbishop Chaput said the bill would remove the ability of the non-profit to maintain a Catholic leadership.

This has come up in other parts of the country and usually comes down to no less than what I bolded above when the “issue” gets more discussion.

If discrimination was not an issue, then why worry about it? Is the Denver Archdiocese scared about discriminating against people based on any of the things listed above? The “hot-button” issue is of course sexual orientation. Regarding the stickie at CAF about the official stance and many CAF discussions about discrimination related to sexual orientation, the Archdiocese should not care, as they should not be looked upon as lesser people. I do not believe and I expect the vast majority of Catholics would go along and support this anti-discrimination language.

Or is the elephant in the room really sexual orientation?

 

[CuriousInIL]

I think that the “religion” issue is a deal breaker. They would not be allowed to prefer Catholics for positions in a Catholic organization.

 

[Dale_M]

If discrimination was not an issue, then why worry about it? Is the Denver Archdiocese scared about discriminating against people based on any of the things listed above? The “hot-button” issue is of course sexual orientation.

I disagree. No doubt there are some individuals who are spurred by a dislike of homosexuals. But Archbishop Chaput , who I think better speaks for the Church, states the need for the leadership of its services to be Catholic. He goes on to say:

Catholic Charities does not proselytize its clients. That isn’t its purpose. But Catholic Charities has no interest at all in generic do-goodism; on the contrary, it’s an arm of Catholic social ministry. When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be “Catholic,” it will end its services.

Abp. Chaput, in his many columns, has laid things out plain. I doubt that his concern now is motivated primarily by a dislike of homosexuals. Rather he is sincere in wanting to preserve Catholic leadership of organizations such as Catholic Charities.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, if it passes, don’t take government funding. There are always some strings attached, cut them!

“Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”

When we accept government money, we accept government control.

There are apparently those who think there is a vault of Government money somewhere, mouldering away for lack of people willing to spend it. To such people I say, fear not – someone will always come forward to spend it – we don’t need to sell our Catholic heritage and morals for fear the money will go unspent.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

A pending Colorado bill might deny the hiring preference of practicing Catholics for key leadership positions in Catholic non-profit organizations and threaten Catholic identity. The Archbishop of Denver sounds the alarm, warning he may have to end Catholic Charities’ involvement with government programs if the bill passes

I say end it anyway. Also, we have the right and duty to ignore any “Positive Law” that is opposed to Natural Law.

If this bill passes, I may decide to cancel my trip to Denver in April for a conference, I do not want to contribute to an economy that is so bigoted.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to start declaring governments unjust because of laws like this.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I say end it anyway.

We should never have started it – what reason do we have to take government money? As I said, it isn’t as if no one will spend the money if we don’t.

Let others sell their identity to the Government, and let the Catholic Church retain its identity.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

We should never have started it – what reason do we have to take government money? As I said, it isn’t as if no one will spend the money if we don’t.

Let others sell their identity to the Government, and let the Catholic Church retain its identity.

Because there are some social programs that religion-based institutions can reach that other public sector ones cannot. It is also to diversify the Church’s mission of charity towards others. The Church has a broad, non-discrimination mission towards charity, since Catholic means universal anyways. Anti-discrimination towards anything should be a main foundation block of a universal church.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I disagree. No doubt there are some individuals who are spurred by a dislike of homosexuals. But Archbishop Chaput , who I think better speaks for the Church, states the need for the leadership of its services to be Catholic. He goes on to say:

Abp. Chaput, in his many columns, has laid things out plain. I doubt that his concern now is motivated primarily by a dislike of homosexuals. Rather he is sincere in wanting to preserve Catholic leadership of organizations such as Catholic Charities.

We shall find out more as the public discussion on this continues. This also raises a question, just what is the Archbishop’s definition of “Catholic”? I believe it was posted in MT a couple of week ago and it seemed pretty limited. Charity management should transcend religious identity. Catholic Charities’ mission is to all, and if a person of a different religion can do the job better and provide superior charity outreach, then they should seriously be considered for the job.

To the person receiving the warm meal, heating aid, free or reduced counciling, warm bed, loving adoption, the politics at the top are non-existent. They key is to get as many services to as many in need as you can.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think Abp Chaput is right. By the time the courts get through with it, they won’t be able to prevent a Buddhist from running the Chancery or a guy in a day care facility from showing up in a cocktail dress.

It’s the camel’s nose in the tent. No question about it. It would have been easy for the legislature to have done otherwise, but this stuff is intended to target religious organizations generally, and probably the Catholic Church in particular, to force it to endorse things that are contrary to its beliefs, or be shoved out of the charity business by government.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Maybe the Catholic charitable organizations need to get out of, e.g., the fuel-aid business entirely, if that’s what it comes to.

In the next Congress, we’re likely to see significant tax increases, which will tend to reduce charitable donations, and more legislation and regulations like this. And, of course, the government will take care of every need, so why does anyone need to be charitable anyway? I think Catholic charities are in for a rough time, and for a long time. With all due respect to Abp Chaput, maybe the Church needs to concentrate its resources on (finally) catechizing and evanglizing. If Catholics were sufficiently faithful to the teachings of the Church, I don’t think we would be seeing things like this.

In the 2008 elections, what percentage of Catholics are going to vote for abortion supporting candidates? 40% at minimum? 55% perhaps at maximum? That represents a failure in teaching over a long period of time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because there are some social programs that religion-based institutions can reach that other public sector ones cannot.

Such as?

It is also to diversify the Church’s mission of charity towards others. The Church has a broad, non-discrimination mission towards charity, since Catholic means universal anyways. Anti-discrimination towards anything should be a main foundation block of a universal church.

Does that include opposing anti-Catholic discrimination?

Do we have to abandon our Catholic identity and heritage to meet these goals? Must Catholic hospitals perform abortions?

 

[stbruno]

With all due respect to Abp Chaput, maybe the Church needs to concentrate its resources on (finally) catechizing and evanglizing. If Catholics were sufficiently faithful to the teachings of the Church, I don’t think we would be seeing things like this.

St.Francis Assisi says…preach often, when necessary use words. Mother Teresa says…God wants me to be faithful not successful, when asked if she feels that taking of the poor never seems to end.

Catholic Charities provides evangelization and preaching, just by the care they provide. You don’t have to bang someone over the head with scripture to evangelize. Like Mother Teresa, you just need to be faithful. I hope Archbishop Chaput’s words make a definite impact on the outcome on this legislation

 

[vern_humphrey]

With all due respect to Abp Chaput, maybe the Church needs to concentrate its resources on (finally) catechizing and evanglizing. If Catholics were sufficiently faithful to the teachings of the Church, I don’t think we would be seeing things like this.

St.Francis Assisi says…preach often, when necessary use words. Mother Teresa says…God wants me to be faithful not successful, when asked if she feels that taking of the poor never seems to end.

Catholic Charities provides evangelization and preaching, just by the care they provide. You don’t have to bang someone over the head with scripture to evangelize. Like Mother Teresa, you just need to be faithful. I hope Archbishop Chaput’s words make a definite impact on the outcome on this legislation

No disagreement there – except to add that we do have a duty to the poor.

Let me restate that – we have a duty to the poor. That means us – all us Catholics. We don’t discharge that duty by shoveling someone else’s money around.

Let us fund our own charities, out of our own pockets – and run our affairs as the Church guides us, rather than as the government forces us.

 

[johnnykins]

No disagreement there – except to add that we do have a duty to the poor.

Let me restate that – we have a duty to the poor. That means us – all us Catholics. We don’t discharge that duty by shoveling someone else’s money around.

Let us fund our own charities, out of our own pockets – and run our affairs as the Church guides us, rather than as the government forces us.

Vern - I think you are exactly right.

On general principles I think the Church has made an error in accepting government money in the first place - Catholic Charities, education, etc… When the Church does so it lets the government have a say on how it operates. It’s a prudential judgment by the Church to accept such monies - more money to do more things and serve more people in need. But, it cedes to the government the ability to set rules and regulations, etc., that the Church must abide by. I simply believe the Church will be better off - and society better off - if the Church does not accept government money at all. Others will clearly disagree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern - I think you are exactly right.

On general principles I think the Church has made an error in accepting government money in the first place - Catholic Charities, education, etc… When the Church does so it lets the government have a say on how it operates.

Absolutely. One of the great lessons of the Nazi era was that when the government funnels taxpayer money to the churches, the churches are reluctant to speak out against the government.

Note how the Catholic Bishops’ lawyers dissuaded them from endorsing the CAF voters’ guide – not because the Voter’s Guide was morally or doctrinally wrong, but for fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

It’s a prudential judgment by the Church to accept such monies - more money to do more things and serve more people in need.

Yes, but anyone can do that. The government doesn’t need the Catholic Church to help it spend money.

But, it cedes to the government the ability to set rules and regulations, etc., that the Church must abide by. I simply believe the Church will be better off - and society better off - if the Church does not accept government money at all. Others will clearly disagree.

I think we can show harm from accepting government money already. We should take the lesson and stop taking the King’s shilling.

 

[KathleenElsie]

So, if it passes, don’t take government funding. There are always some strings attached, cut them!

I have said for many years: We need to get government out of our religion and anything that pertains to our churches and religious beliefs.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Such as?

Does that include opposing anti-Catholic discrimination?

Do we have to abandon our Catholic identity and heritage to meet these goals? Must Catholic hospitals perform abortions?

I do not see this legislation singling out any particular religion. To talk about anything being “anti-Catholic”, we need to consider what “Catholic” means in this situation compared to other definitions.

The Denver Archbishop has used a more narrow definition of Catholic in things that have been posted in MT at CAF recently. It leans to more of a faithful only vs universal definition. This leans towards alienation and exclusion based on this or that.

Being that charity is part of the Catholic identity and heritage, there is no possible interference with the accepted goals of charity. This follows with the meaning of Catholic being universal, which is the one accepted by most of society. Charity is universal.

What traditions do you see being “discriminated” upon in your direction if this passes? Do they lean to the exclusion of one group or another?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not see this legislation singling out any particular religion. To talk about anything being “anti-Catholic”, we need to consider what “Catholic” means in this situation compared to other definitions.

The Denver Archbishop has used a more narrow definition of Catholic in things that have been posted in MT at CAF recently. It leans to more of a faithful only vs universal definition. This leans towards alienation and exclusion based on this or that.

Being that charity is part of the Catholic identity and heritage, there is no possible interference with the accepted goals of charity. This follows with the meaning of Catholic being universal, which is the one accepted by most of society. Charity is universal.

What traditions do you see being “discriminated” upon in your direction if this passes? Do they lean to the exclusion of one group or another?

The Church has a right to set her own standards. A Catholic bishop is responsible for and has control over all Catholic activities in his diocese. To impose on that right is anti-Catholic.

The Church should not get hooked on public money. She must maintain her independence in all things. Let some other charity get that money and spend it. Let us fund our own charities independently.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, but Stbruno, if Catholics were properly catechized, just maybe we would also be better donors, and wouldn’t need to ask the government to help us out with our religious duties. When you’re a conduit for government money, is that really charity?