Catholic Charities Forced to Shut Down Services around the Country

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
In some U.S. states as well as in the UK, Catholic charities have ended some services in the face of laws requiring them to place children with gay couples. In these places lawmakers openly and willingly target these Catholic charities as they refuse to allow a religious exemption, pressuring them to abandon either their religious beliefs or their service to children.
see www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680
 
They are not forcing them to cut down services. They are forcing them to end discriminating solely on the basis of sexuality.
 
kaid100 said:
They are not forcing them to cut down services. They are forcing them to end discriminating solely on the basis of sexuality.
Click to expand...
  1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
 
We all discriminate. An adoption agency should discriminate on moral grounds before turning over a defenseless child to adults. Professed sexual behavior is a public moral choice; the Catholic Church has held consistently only one narrow road laid out by Jesus Christ for appropriate sexual choices. The same road was held until recently by all churches. It is blasphemous to ask the Church to turn her back on Christ to follow the modern world’s sense of “justice”.
 
Homosexuals are deviant by physical nature and also by mental nature and are defective, irrespective of whether people wish to talk about sin or not. It is a simple fact that any stuff up in chemical process that causes a person to be born homosexual MUST automatically impact on their ability to operate on a mental level of balance to some degree.

This is veryeasily illustrated by the fact that homosexuals are thousands of percent more likely to sexually abuse those under the age of consent. This can not be denied. The stats are so strong that no one can refute them, without ridculing themselves.

I have a great deal of sympathy for someone who is homosexual in the context that whether people are born that way or become that way through experience, it is a hard road to hoe, however that does not put aside the realities of dealing with homosexuals.

I as a police officer know full well through experience and investigations on the seedier side of life over 25 years to quite openly state, that my children are not allowed to be taught by homosexuals in an education environment or in deed in effect are not allowed or put in any positions where they have to be cared for by homosexuals, on the simple basis that they are thousands of percent more likely to be abused in their care, no if buts or maybey’s.
 
kaid100 said:
They are not forcing them to cut down services. They are forcing them to end discriminating solely on the basis of sexuality.
Click to expand...
I wonder, is it okay in your view for a Church to be forced to marry anyone who walks through their doors? After all, right now the Church discriminates in many ways…perhaps that silly little statement “freedom of religion” is just too darned old fashion, right?
 
markomalley said:
  1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
Click to expand...
In your head, because the Vatican says it it must be true. That’s not the case with everyone.
 
MichaelTDoyle said:
We all discriminate. An adoption agency should discriminate on moral grounds before turning over a defenseless child to adults. Professed sexual behavior is a public moral choice; the Catholic Church has held consistently only one narrow road laid out by Jesus Christ for appropriate sexual choices. The same road was held until recently by all churches. It is blasphemous to ask the Church to turn her back on Christ to follow the modern world’s sense of “justice”.
Click to expand...
We all have different views as to what constitutes “moral grounds”. To most now, including me, homophobia is immoral and homosexuality isn’t. And no, it isn’t blasphemous to ask people to refrain from discriminating solely on the basis of homosexuality.
 
irishpatrick said:
I wonder, is it okay in your view for a Church to be forced to marry anyone who walks through their doors? After all, right now the Church discriminates in many ways…perhaps that silly little statement “freedom of religion” is just too darned old fashion, right?
Click to expand...
An adoption agency is a secular institution so must abide by secular rules, even if it is run by a church. The same is not true of ritual marriage although frankly I’m not terribly impressed by people that say gays shouldn’t marry if they love each other, either.
 
kaid100 said:
An adoption agency is a secular institution so must abide by secular rules, even if it is run by a church. The same is not true of ritual marriage although frankly I’m not terribly impressed by people that say gays shouldn’t marry if they love each other, either.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you do not agree with “freedom of religion.” Churches are not free to practice their faith in the way THEY determine.

BTW, some adoption agencies are secular in nature, others (like Catholic Charities) are faith based organizations.

I also assume you would support legally forcing Churches to marry gay couples since the 1st Amendment means so little to you.
 
Arguing a point of morality with someone who does not share any of the same foundations as you do is pointless. Although, it does tend to show that person’s ignorance…
 
irishpatrick said:
Okay, so you do not agree with “freedom of religion.” Churches are not free to practice their faith in the way THEY determine.

BTW, some adoption agencies are secular in nature, others (like Catholic Charities) are faith based organizations.

I also assume you would support legally forcing Churches to marry gay couples since the 1st Amendment means so little to you.
Click to expand...
What would the First Amendment mean to me? I’m not a US citizen. I don’t see what it has to do with this issue anyway. Your accusation is a strawman, I’ve never said churches should be legally forced to marry someone, but I don’t think Churches should try to forbid people marrying elsewhere either.

Adopting is a secular matter, not a religious ritual. If a Church wants to perform a secular service, that is fine, but they must abide by secular rules even if they are a religious institution.
 
kaid100 said:
News flash: the people that decide what legally constitutes discrimination is your country’s lawmakers, not the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Next news flash: you are corresponding on a Catholic message board in the “Catholic News” section. Not in the halls of Congress. Not in the local “Atheist Club”

In other words, the teachings of the Church are normative.

See Forum Rule #5: Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Comments you’ve made, such as In your head, because the Vatican says it it must be true. do not read like they are respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. In fact, they sound blatantly disrespectful of that faith.

Would you care to discuss the validity of that teaching? As an example, perhaps you’d care to discuss why, in your mind, “Sexual orientation” *should *constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps you’d care to discuss how you believe I’ve taken that teaching out of context and, in truth, the Church should, by Her own teaching, allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

But In your head, because the Vatican says it it must be true???

Really? On a Catholic message board??
 
markomalley said:
Next news flash: you are corresponding on a Catholic message board in the “Catholic News” section. Not in the halls of Congress. Not in the local “Atheist Club”

In other words, the teachings of the Church are normative.

See Forum Rule #5: Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Comments you’ve made, such as In your head, because the Vatican says it it must be true. do not read like they are respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. In fact, they sound blatantly disrespectful of that faith.

Would you care to discuss the validity of that teaching? As an example, perhaps you’d care to discuss why, in your mind, “Sexual orientation” *should *constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps you’d care to discuss how you believe I’ve taken that teaching out of context and, in truth, the Church should, by Her own teaching, allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

But In your head, because the Vatican says it it must be true???

Really? On a Catholic message board??
Click to expand...
Let me show you where this started from:
kaid100 said:
They are not forcing them to cut down services. They are forcing them to end discriminating solely on the basis of sexuality.
Click to expand...
markomalley said:
  1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
Click to expand...
 
irishpatrick said:
Okay, so you do not agree with “freedom of religion.” Churches are not free to practice their faith in the way THEY determine.
Click to expand...
There have always been restrictions on religious freedom; the Church of Huitzilopochtli is not allowed to carry out human sacrifice. The debate is over what is allowed and what is not allowed. It is generally agreed that discrimination against women is wrong, yet churches are allowed to select male only ministers. I suspect that in the case of gay marriage the outcome will be that secular marriage is available to all gays, while religious marriage will only be available in those churches that wish to offer it, as the MCC does now. Churches that do not wish to offer it, such as the Catholic Church, will not be forced to do so.
BTW, some adoption agencies are secular in nature, others (like Catholic Charities) are faith based organizations.
Click to expand...
If they receive subsidies from the state, such as tax credits, then they I see it as legitimate to require them to follow anti-discrimination law. They are already required to follow the law in not discriminating against women in their hiring policies. They do not have an exception in law as with the hiring of ministers. That seems to me to be a reasonable place to draw the line.

rossum
 
kaid100 said:
Let me show you where this started from:
Click to expand...
They are Catholic charities. As such, they should operate in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

If they were secular charity trusts, that would be an altogether different situation.

If the laws of the State and the doctrine of the Church conflict, Catholics are supposed to operate per the doctrine of the Church. [bibledrb]Acts 5:29[/bibledrb]
So these Catholic charities are confronted with a choice:
  • Obey the laws of man…in which case they will no longer be “Catholic” charities
  • Obey the laws of God…in which case, they will either be required to close or operate and not comply…ultimately resulting in fines and / or jail.
 
rossum said:
If they receive subsidies from the state, such as tax credits, then they I see it as legitimate to require them to follow anti-discrimination law.
Click to expand...
I cringe at the thought of Catholic charities in this country receiving any kind of grant from the State for just that reason.

This is yet another example of why they should abandon any type of state subsidy.
 
They cry “separation of Church and State”, and yet this is a prime example of the State attempting to force their views upon the Church.

It is quite sad. In many states, it seems that the Church is being systematically bullied out of any social service program. Forcing adoption/foster care agencies to place children with cohabiting couples (whether same sex or opposite sex). Forcing hospitals to offer abortion services. I wait with dreadful anticipation for the day when state funds for our Catholic schools come with the string attached that they must offer some sort of same sex seminar to our Catholic youth. Hundreds of struggling Catholic schools will be forced to close their doors (ironically enough, costing the state far more money as the cost of educating one student in the Catholic school system is far below the cost of educating them in the public school system).

Mark’s solution that the Church abandon any type of state subsidy is certainly the direction things are heading, but I find it less than ideal. When a diocese receives millions of dollars from the state to employ dozens of people and offer foster care/adoption services to thousands of people, rejecting that money means that they are effectively out of business. Regrettably, that is the decision some dioceses are being forced to make. And it’s only becoming more and more prevalent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top