Catholic Charities Forced to Shut Down Services around the Country

[centurionguard]

Adoption is a function of the state. No matter who does the brokering, they have to follow the laws of the State.

Sacramental marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the State. In fact, the State doesn’t recognize it at all. So the State has no reason force Churches to marry gay couples.

So the State has no reason force Churches to marry gay couples.

Gay Marriage has been Federally legalized by the Supreme Court of Canada since 2004.

While the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and their Canon Law lawyers failed to stop Same-Sex Marriage. They did however; secure Supreme Court protection to the Catholic Church of Canada under the federal charter of freedom of religion so that priests are not forced under any law of land to marry Same-Sex couples, Catholic or otherwise inside the Catholic Church.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

This not @ housing or employment ! Please don’t engage in straw man arguements . Treating different things differently is NOT discrimination ! Besides , there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination , we all do it .
So in order to teach children the "TRUTH " about the human body , reproduction and marriage , we have to send our children to private schools ? How much will you chip in ?

[Fostering children is a state run function, it is not a religious sacrament. The local authority has a set of national guidelines that it has to follow, which include non-discrimination. Remember that the children being fostered are a mixture of heterosexual and homosexual children.]

I believe in objective moral truth that is transcendant , universal and timeless. Treating different things differently is not discrimination . Do the male & female bodies fit ?
Why so ?
What part of Natural Law don’t you understand ?
The truth is the truth for everyone , not just those who accept it .
Same-sex unions undermine not just procreation , but also the central element of sexual difference & it’s relation to the unitive good , the sanctity of human sexuality and the permanent and abiding meaning of marriage .
If some of the foster children are homosexual , all the more reason for foster parents to explain to them that homosexual behavior is wrong and doesn’t conform to the complimentarity of the human body .

But this case refutes your argument that SSM won’t interfere with the practice of anyones religious beliefs & how those beliefs play out in the real world .

Religion is always personal , but it is NEVER Private , it must play out in the public square or else it has no meaning .

[Nature is more subtle than you may think. See: Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct*]

I said nature discriminates against homosexual sex , NOT that they might go extinct ! So why bring this up ? Pay attention !
How subtle is this , men who smoke reduce their life expectancy by @ 13.5 years . Men who have sex w/ men reduce their life expectancy by @ 20 years . How statstically different is that ? This study concluded that if 3% of the pop. studied were MSM , the probability of a 20 y.o. MSM living to age 65 was only 32 % , compared to 78 % for men in general . Subtle enough for you ? ( R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, et al., " Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality In Gay and Bisexual Men " ,International Journal Of Epidemiology, 26 (3) : 657-661 ,p. 659 ( 1977 ) .

While you are at it , why don’t you read, " The Health Risks of Gay Sex " , Dr . John R. Diggs . Jr. , M. D. ( he’s an Internist ) .

How subtle is this ? Late last year the U.S . CDC released a report stating that in the U. S. , MSM have about a 20 % rate of infection for HIV !

Perhaps instead of all those "smoke free zones " we should have " sodomy free zones " ?

So, it was obviously caused by the fall of communism in 1989. Look up the Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Civil marriage has changed a lot over the years. There was a time when the husband effectively owned his wife, and also owned all of her property. Civil marriage has been changing for a very long time; I don’t see this change as being very significant. Will two people decide not to get married because Julie and Jane next door are marrying each other?

Two heterosexual friends of mine recently got married after 33 years living together because two of their gay friends got civil partnershipped (after a mere 30 years together).

rossum

http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

[So, it was obviously caused by the fall of communism in 1989. Look up the *Post hoc ergo propter hoc

logical fallacy.]

Not even clever by half , keep your day job .
Let me deconstruct this for you .SSM teaches future generations that marriage is not about children but about " coupling " . When marriage becomes nothing more than " coupling " , fewer people will get married to have children .

People will still have children , but many more of them will be out-of-wedlock .That is a disaster for everyone . Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents often never form a family, and those that " shack up " break up at a rate TWO to THREE TIMES that of married parents . Society will be hurt because out-of-wedlock births start a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes : poverty , crime & higher welfare costs ( single mums expect the state to be their husband and baby daddy ) which lead to bigger government , higher taxes and a slower economy .
So , when Norway instituted de -facto SSM in the early nineties and 10 years later when illigitimacy rises from 39% to 50 % , it’s a coincidence ? Or,
in Norway SSM has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated , and that virtually any family form , including out-of-wedlock parenthood , is acceptable .

By your argument , the legalization of " no fault " divorce in the U.S. had no impact on the incidence of divorce here , correct ? Or was it caused by the fall of communism ?
Just like legalizing SSM in Norway had no affect on that country’s marriage rates and out -of-wedlock birthrates ?

How comfortable are you in your "willful ignorance " ?

[Civil marriage has changed a lot over the years. There was a time when the husband effectively owned his wife, and also owned all of her property. Civil marriage has been changing for a very long time; I don’t see this change as being very significant. Will two people decide not to get married because Julie and Jane next door are marrying each other?]

The inequitable position of wives to husbands in marriage at any point in history does not change the basic definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman . Property rites have nothing to do with the complimentarity of the male and female . A dowry doesn’t change that .
Changing the relationship of the complimentarity of the partners doesn’t seem " Very SIgnificant " ? Really ? How do 2 men or 2 women make a baby ?
Actually Stanley Kurtz and David Blankenhorn ( who is homosexual) both report that Traditional Marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever SSM is legal !

You can believe in Same Sex Marriage OR you can believe every child DESERVES a MOTHER AND a FATHER , But you CAN"T believe BOTH !!!

So please , tell everyone here why you think Children DON"T Deserve a Mother AND A Father ? Enlighten us !( Even Mother Nature says they deserve a mother and a father --but you know better ) .

[Two heterosexual friends of mine recently got married after 33 years living together because two of their gay friends got civil partnershipped (after a mere 30 years together).]

And this is on point and has meaning ? SSM has no affect on existing Marriages , but it does have an affect on children and future ( potential ) marriages .

I don’t think you understand the Purpose of marriage .
Marriage is Not about individuals but about families . It is an instituttion that predates the State whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to give themselves to each other until death principally for the sake of the children born to them .
Thus , it is the procreation and upbringing of children that makes marriage such a SOCIAL good ( marriage has both unitive AND procreative functions , but I am not going into the personal functions here because I am mainly concerned with the legal and social aspects in this thread ) . The State accordingly invests in marriage between a man and a woman because it knows that is the ideal and best possible method of insuring its future through the procreation and rearing of children.

SSM teaches children several very bad lessons :That marriage is simply about " coupling ",
that marriage has nothing to do with children , that children may be the enemy of marriage because children are the enemy of pleasure , that nothing is more important than acquiring pleasure and acquiring it quickly if not immediately , that if marriage is merely about "coupling " why even get married to have children .

The veneer of civilization is extremely thin , and the founation of civilization is the family and marriage .Families are little civilization factories and you seem cavalier about upending if not destroying the foundation of civilization .

You and your co-travelers lack any semblance of humility on this subject . In the roughly 6000 years of recorded human history no one except in the last 20-30 years has proposed that SSM should be endorsed by the law . Every generation that preceeded you and yours lacked wisdom on this subject apparently ! But thanks to you & your co-travelers our benighted state of affairs is being alleviated !

Abraham got this wrong , Moses got this wrong , Jesus , Augustine , Thomas , Moses Maimonides ( sp. ? ) ALL got marriage wrong , But , But rossum and his fellow SSM advocates got it correct ! Alleluia !! Praise the Lord !

So this is what I am asking you to do if you really have the courage of your convictions , post on this thread that you , rossum , when it comes to marriage and SSM , are wiser than Abraham , Moses, Jesus ,Augustine , Thomas and Moses Maimonides !

And just to show you that I have the courage of my convictions and don’t ask more of others than I am willing to do , I will state here that when it comes to SSM I AM WISER than Andrew Cuomo ( but that’s not saying much , this is low hanging fruit ) !

I eagerly look forward to your public proclamation !

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

chuckfrmvalyfrg:
Chuck,

It’s hard to read your replies when you embed them in somebody else’s post, with no differentiation in form with the other poster’s text.

Just a friendly suggestion: you can click on the Quote at the bottom right of the post to which you are replying.
,

 

[Muttonchops88]

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

It’s already been said here before, but it’s worth saying again. Adoptions, when brokered on behalf the the state, need to follow the regulations and statutes as set out by the state. The state cannot and should not provide resources to individuals or organizations who are not going to follow the regulations. Catholic Charities in many areas has (bravely I might add) stood up and gotten out of adoptions rather than enter into this conflict. I think it is excellent that they are putting fidelity to the teachings of the Church above the financial incentives that come with abandoning these teachings.

That said, the State has no power of those activities to which there are no connections to the state. So, the state (or federal) government could not require the Church to bless any civil union. All marriages (homo or hetero-sexual) are civil unions issued by the state in the form of a license. The only difference is whether it is blessed by the Church. A Justice of the Peace may issue a marriage license, but only a Church can bless it.

Another example: I used to manage a parish food pantry. We participated in the USDA Commodities program (think Government Cheese). We also distributed food to families from our own pantry with donations from parishoners. The USDA set income guidelines for the commodities, but it could say absolutely NOTHING about the food from our parishoners. I had many clients who could not qualify for commodities but got food from the pantry anyway. The qualifications for food from the pantry were set by the parish social ministries coordinator and the pastor. We just had to make sure that we were compliant in the event of an audit.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Chuck,

It’s hard to read your replies when you embed them in somebody else’s post, with no differentiation in form with the other poster’s text.

Just a friendly suggestion: you can click on the Quote at the bottom right of the post to which you are replying. ]
,

Thank you , you are correct . I frequently come to this site late in my day and I am often tired . When this happens I often am careless or sloppy . If you’ll notice my previous post #50 , I did it correctly , I don’t know what happened in the other 2 posts . It could have been keyboard pixies !

 

[St_Francis]

It’s already been said here before, but it’s worth saying again. Adoptions, when brokered on behalf the the state, need to follow the regulations and statutes as set out by the state. The state cannot and should not provide resources to individuals or organizations who are not going to follow the regulations. Catholic Charities in many areas has (bravely I might add) stood up and gotten out of adoptions rather than enter into this conflict…

I just wanted to clarify that the above aside, the government has no right to violate natural law like this.

 

[St_Francis]

I remember when the divorce rate starting getting so high in the late Sixties and early Seventies, a lot of studies came out saying that divorce had very little effect on children, so it was no big deal to get divorced.

Then twenty and thirty years later the long-term studies came out showing that the children of divorce did indeed suffer effects, they just didn’t show up for a while.

I have already heard of two separate incidents of homosexuals sexually abusing their adopted children. I’m sorry, there are too many healthy married couples seeking to adopt to run the huge and unexplored risks to innocent children to allow this sort of thing.

Discrimination should be shut down. You can’t discriminate based on sexuality. That is the law, for good reason. Why would the Catholic Charities want to break the law, and why would they want to deny children a good home? It is very popular to delete threads around here which are honest about sexuality, in order to promote a particular agenda. But, there is growing evidence that children raised in some gay households are better adjusted on average psychologically than children raised in straight households.

That is not conclusive, at this time, but there are also no credible studies to show that children are harmed in any way by such an environment, so the weight of the evidence at this point in time is that lesbian households should be given preference of heterosexual households, if you consider only the welfare of the child. Why would you want to treat a child in such a way to deprive it of the best home available?

Unlike those who would discriminate against gay adoptive households, I don’t think that it would be fair to discriminate against heterosexuals for being worse parents than lesbians. Even though they may not be as good, they can still provide a loving home.

 

[josie_L]

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.

I too cring at the idea of state subsidies, in fact, in Quebec, religious daycares were initially invited by the provincial government to receive subsidies (so parents can pay 7$ a day), and were told that they could operate and/or preach their religious views without impunity, i.e. retain their religious identity. This however has changed so that now the provincial government is telling them they can no longer preach their views, sing religious songs, celebrate holy days. . . .etc. without losing their subsidies. This was done without notifying the public/institutions, and we (those of religious faith) were left with sigining a petition (8000 or so signed) in the hopes of changing the minds of those in government (the law came into effect this past June 2011). Last I heard, religious groups have formed a coalition, and are bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada hoping to reverse the law. I almost feel as though this is what they were initially aiming for when they proposed inviting religious daycares into receiving subsidies, i.e., so that they could eventually affirm control over them.

p.s. It makes me want so angry to see these extreme secularists do this.

 

[josie_L]

I remember when the divorce rate starting getting so high in the late Sixties and early Seventies, a lot of studies came out saying that divorce had very little effect on children, so it was no big deal to get divorced.

Then twenty and thirty years later the long-term studies came out showing that the children of divorce did indeed suffer effects, they just didn’t show up for a while.

I have already heard of two separate incidents of homosexuals sexually abusing their adopted children. I’m sorry, there are too many healthy married couples seeking to adopt to run the huge and unexplored risks to innocent children to allow this sort of thing.

There is this article I read regarding Same-sex couples and adoption, here is an excerpt:

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21)

drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_lgbt.html

I found this article on another website: winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/