Catholic Charities beliefs clash with contraceptive needs

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t think that’s true. First of all, it was in states with high Catholic numbers like New York that legalized abortion first started appearing, even before Roe.

In other words, we allowed creeping incrementalism to overcome us. The Bishops did not defend forward – leading the faithful in protest.

And after Roe, the Church had no say at all.

The bishops are forbidden by Roe vs Wade to preach that abortion is evil? The government sends armed police into the churches to force priests to give communion to those who advocate abortion?

I recall Cardinal O’Connor kneeling in front of an abortion clinic and saying the rosary. How many other bishops have done that?

I think the Bishops had already lost their Authority prior to legalized abortion. What I mean by Authority is that once upon a time, when the Bishop spoke, Catholics listened and obeyed. With the weakening of all authority structures in the 60’s, and there were a lot of young Catholics at the time, the Bishops lost their civic Authority. Today the only authority they have is in running the internal life of their dioceses. And with the recent events in the Church, the formation of SNAP, various laity actions, etc. the laity left have let it be known that if the Bishop doesn’t rule his diocese well, they will stand up to him on his turf too.

And perhaps the Holy Spirit is inspiring us to do that.

 

[bones_IV]

We should not forget we are the Catholic Church. Our bishops must lead us – as they have not, so far.

If the Catholic Bishops had stood forthrightly against abortion from the start, there would not be legalized abortion in this country today. Our bishops are too willing to sup with the devil.

That day will come when our nation recognizes abortion and contraception as a violation of human rights. It all starts in the family. If we take a serious look at the feminist movement, and the tragic consequences of liberalized divorce laws (beginning in the early 1950’s) and then we place the contraceptive mentality in the mix, we get a very good idea of why women are dehumanized, viewed as objects and encouraged to not only compete with men but do without them!

 

[a_cermak]

I don’t see how you get contraception as a violation of human rights. No one in the US is forced to take it.

 

[bones_IV]

I don’t see how you get contraception as a violation of human rights. No one in the US is forced to take it.

Contraception is the direct contradiction of pro-creation. And it violates the natural law of God. Contraception denies the right to give life.

 

[a_cermak]

Contraception is the direct contradiction of pro-creation. And it violates the natural law of God. Contraception denies the right to give life.

Contraception only denies the right to give life to the people who take it. I’m not arguing that contraception could be harmful to the soul, my argument is that it’s a real stretch to call it a violation of human rights. In my view, it cheapens what are violations of human rights when other non-human rights issues are thrown in. Can contraception be used as a tool to deny people their basic human rights? Absolutely. Is it used so in the US? Nope, not from what I’ve seen.

 

[buffalo]

Contraception only denies the right to give life to the people who take it. I’m not arguing that contraception could be harmful to the soul, my argument is that it’s a real stretch to call it a violation of human rights. In my view, it cheapens what are violations of human rights when other non-human rights issues are thrown in. Can contraception be used as a tool to deny people their basic human rights? Absolutely. Is it used so in the US? Nope, not from what I’ve seen.

If the contraceptive is also an abortifacient it certainly be a viloation of the human rights to the baby it kills.

 

[bones_IV]

Contraception only denies the right to give life to the people who take it. I’m not arguing that contraception could be harmful to the soul, my argument is that it’s a real stretch to call it a violation of human rights. In my view, it cheapens what are violations of human rights when other non-human rights issues are thrown in. Can contraception be used as a tool to deny people their basic human rights? Absolutely. Is it used so in the US? Nope, not from what I’ve seen.

I’ve seen the stuff they put on TV and the suggestive sexual content on them. Now are you going to tell me that people aren’t coerced and intimidated into using contraceptives? You’ve gotta be kidding yourself if that’s what you think. Have faith.

 

[Lrning]

"Currently the exception is specifically for religious employers, like seminaries. But two courts, including the Court of Appeals, have ruled that the organization doesn’t qualify because they* employ and serve ***those outside of their religion."

I found this part interesting. As an employer, I think Catholic Charities cannot discriminate in their hiring practices and hire only Catholics. And they cannot limit their services to only Catholics. And as a result, they have to pay for something that violates the tenets of our faith. It’s mixed up.

 

[OriginalJS]

I agree. The bishops didn’t let the church down. They were effectively overruled by the laity who did not accept Paul VI’s *Humane Vitae *but elected instead to avail themselves of easily available contraception. That was a watershed. The lay reaction was so harsh that Paul VI didn’t venture into those waters again.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree. The bishops didn’t let the church down. They were effectively overruled by the laity who did not accept Paul VI’s *Humane Vitae *but elected instead to avail themselves of easily available contraception. That was a watershed. The lay reaction was so harsh that Paul VI didn’t venture into those waters again.

The first duty of a leader is to lead. The bishops gave us precious little leadership in those crucial years.

 

[OriginalJS]

I don’t think that’s true. First of all, it was in states with high Catholic numbers like New York that legalized abortion first started appearing, even before Roe. And after Roe, the Church had no say at all. I think the Bishops had already lost their Authority prior to legalized abortion. What I mean by Authority is that once upon a time, when the Bishop spoke, Catholics listened and obeyed. With the weakening of all authority structures in the 60’s, and there were a lot of young Catholics at the time, the Bishops lost their civic Authority. Today the only authority they have is in running the internal life of their dioceses. And with the recent events in the Church, the formation of SNAP, various laity actions, etc. the laity left have let it be known that if the Bishop doesn’t rule his diocese well, they will stand up to him on his turf too.

I agree in part. The laity rejected the precepts of Humanae Vitae and judged it so harshly there was nothing the Bishops or the Pope could do. However, I disagree with the general observation that “when the Bishop spoke, Catholics listened and obeyed.” A lot of suffering in Catholic lands in Europe could have been avoided if the Catholics there had “listened and obeyed.”

 

[buffalo]

I agree in part. The laity rejected the precepts of Humanae Vitae and judged it so harshly there was nothing the Bishops or the Pope could do. However, I disagree with the general observation that “when the Bishop spoke, Catholics listened and obeyed.” A lot of suffering in Catholic lands in Europe could have been avoided if the Catholics there had “listened and obeyed.”

I call this the “lost generation”. They elected contraception because they believe the Church teaching is no longer relevant. Don’t remove blame from the clergy however. They took a soft pastoral approach and some taught it was OK given the primary of conscience thinking.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree in part. The laity rejected the precepts of Humanae Vitae and judged it so harshly there was nothing the Bishops or the Pope could do. However, I disagree with the general observation that “when the Bishop spoke, Catholics listened and obeyed.” A lot of suffering in Catholic lands in Europe could have been avoided if the Catholics there had “listened and obeyed.”

My father used to say, “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re probably right.”

This was a case of the bishops thinking they couldn’t – and not trying.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I don’t see how you get contraception as a violation of human rights. No one in the US is forced to take it.

Not by law. But by peer pressure, public pressure and making it an issue of “female rights” it becomes an expected for the females in this country. Just looking at the mis-information out there as to what it does and does not do.:banghead:

So not not by law. So yes by social pressure. Those youth that fall into the “followers” and use these things to allow them to “do their thing” are being led into grave sin and that is a matter of social conscience.

 

[johnnykins]

I agree in part. The laity rejected the precepts of Humanae Vitae and judged it so harshly there was nothing the Bishops or the Pope could do. However, I disagree with the general observation that “when the Bishop spoke, Catholics listened and obeyed.” A lot of suffering in Catholic lands in Europe could have been avoided if the Catholics there had “listened and obeyed.”

With all due respect, the message from the chanceries, pulpits, schools and Rome was garbled, mixed and contradictory. As late as 2 years ago I was informed by a monsignor that Humanae Vitae did not prohibit the use of contraceptives - and was told an additional resident monsignor agreed… No my friend, don’t try to put this one off on a recalcitrant laity - Rome, Bishops, priests and catholic trachers including nuns and brothers undermined the teaching.

The clergy and especially Bishops, as a group, have been the direct source of most of the problems in the Church today, but still refuse to take responsibilty for it. They have largely failed for 40 years in their responsibility to the laity and Christ, IMHO.

 

[vern_humphrey]

With all due respect, the message from the chanceries, pulpits, schools and Rome was garbled, mixed and contradictory. As late as 2 years ago I was informed by a monsignor that Humanae Vitae did not prohibit the use of contraceptives - and was told an additional resident monsignor agreed… No my friend, don’t try to put this one off on a recalcitrant laity - Rome, Bishops, priests and catholic trachers including nuns and brothers undermined the teaching.

The clergy and especially Bishops, as a group, have been the direct source of most of the problems in the Church today, but still refuse to take responsibilty for it. They have largely failed for 40 years in their responsibility to the laity and Christ, IMHO.

Absolutely true. There are millions of Catholics yearning for strong leadership.

 

[Digitonomy]

But two courts…have ruled that the organization doesn’t qualify because they* employ and serve ***those outside of their religion."As an employer, I think Catholic Charities cannot discriminate in their hiring practices and hire only Catholics. And they cannot limit their services to only Catholics. And as a result, they have to pay for something that violates the tenets of our faith.

I don’t think this is true. Catholic Charities could discriminate in its hiring practices, in the same way that Hooters can hire only women for its waitstaff. It simply has chosen not to. After all, why not hire a Jew or Episcopalian as a secretary or accountant, if he is more qualified than the Catholic applicant? However, it could limit its hiring to only Catholics (I’ll have to dig up the legal terminology for situations where this is justified), but of course anytime you discriminate on the basis of religion or another protected class, the burden is on you to prove the necessity of doing so, should an EEOC complaint be filed.

Furthermore, Catholic Charities could also limit its services to only Catholics. Again, it has chosen not to - the Church almost throughout its history has been generous in its charity beyond its own members. Now there are certainly advantages to serving non-Catholics - better cooperation with other charities, and similar political benefits which would help further the mission of CC, and probably tax issues and government grants as well, not to mention it’s not easy to verify whether someone is truly Catholic, especially in the disadvantaged population with which CC often works. But if Catholic Charities wants the government dole, it must play by government rules. If it doesn’t, there is nothing illegal about limiting its charitable efforts to Catholics.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Vern

I totally agree we need strong leaders that are not afraid to be truthful and true to and about Holy Mother Church and its teachings.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Catholic Charities could limit it hiring practices to only those that follow Holy Mother Church. They could limit their services to only those that are Catholic. They could follow the beliefs of the church. They could do a lot of things. Yet IMHO they choose not to do so.

I believe that the time has come that ether they come back into true Catholic teachings or they drop the word Catholic and be honest with themselves. They should not take money from governments that put restrictions on their “FAITH” and “BELIEFS” for to do so turn them and their workers into hypocrites.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Charities could limit it hiring practices to only those that follow Holy Mother Church. They could limit their services to only those that are Catholic..

That, we cannot do. If we do not exend our services to all who need them, we ceace to be Catholic in a very real way.

Instead of changing the way we carry out Christ’s mandate in order to conform to the secularist idea, let us strive to carry it out despite their resistance and sabotage.