Catholic Charities Forced to Shut Down Services around the Country

[MichaelTDoyle]

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.

But if the Church did stop taking state funds and could work freely, they could reasonably ask the faithful for a larger tithe. I think many would respond, but I honestly do not know if it would be enough.

 

[irishpatrick]

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.

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

The left has managed to force Catholic Charities out of the adoption business despite the obvious fact that there are many secular agencies they can choose from–they do NOT need to go through CC. It is obvious to me that the same tactic will be used to force Churches to marry ss-couples. Christians have warned of the slippery slope for two-three decades and all their warnings are coming to pass–yet amazingly people just continue to believe Christians are crying wolf.

The Church should be able to discriminate in any way it sees fit so long as it is a legitimate Church and is doing so based on its faith teachings…the so-called mythical separation of Church and state is really a one-way wall…the state cannot do anything to prevent the free exercise of religion, yet we are seeing that happen all the time and it will only worsen as time goes on.

 

[irishpatrick]

But if the Church did stop taking state funds and could work freely, they could reasonably ask the faithful for a larger tithe. I think many would respond, but I honestly do not know if it would be enough.

It would not matter…the left will find a way to create a new law to force Churches to comply with their agenda…they believe in the 1st Amendment only when it helps their agenda.

 

[rossum]

The left has managed to force Catholic Charities out of the adoption business despite the obvious fact that there are many secular agencies they can choose from–they do NOT need to go through CC. It is obvious to me that the same tactic will be used to force Churches to marry ss-couples. Christians have warned of the slippery slope for two-three decades and all their warnings are coming to pass–yet amazingly people just continue to believe Christians are crying wolf.

Civil divorce has been legal for a long time now. Are Churches forced to marry divorced couples if they do not wish to? It seems to me that your fears here are misplaced. Everywhere that same sex marriage (or Civil Union) has been passed into law there is a let-out for churches that do not wish to perform such ceremonies.

rossum

 

[YankeeRC]

I dont understand why we Catholics don’t move back into the Ophanage business. Re-open Orphanages and create some new jobs for people. That would be a clearly better Catholic choice than allowing children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

 

[Joe_5859]

But if the Church did stop taking state funds and could work freely, they could reasonably ask the faithful for a larger tithe. I think many would respond, but I honestly do not know if it would be enough.

Yes, if every Catholic tithed, the Church would not need to take a dime from the State.

Unfortunately, it seems to me the more likely scenario is that these types of laws will become more prevalent, which will force the Church to drop social services, which will place a greater burden on the State to provide these services, which will require the State to raise taxes, which will lead many Catholics to give less to the Church.

It’s a lose-lose situation for society as a whole to push the Church out of these areas. Many people do not seem to be able to see this.

 

[irishpatrick]

Civil divorce has been legal for a long time now. Are Churches forced to marry divorced couples if they do not wish to? It seems to me that your fears here are misplaced. Everywhere that same sex marriage (or Civil Union) has been passed into law there is a let-out for churches that do not wish to perform such ceremonies.

rossum

Sure, for now…wait and see.

Since Humane Vitae many people of strong Christian faith have warned of the consequences of what will come from our present sins…people said they were all crying wolf, yet most of the warnings came to pass just as they have from that prophetic document (Humane Vitae). Today, people will continue to say the warnings are unwarranted…yet they will come to pass…just wait and see.

 

[kaid100]

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.

Agreed. But that’s not the same as saying its the lawmakers making them close, it’s the combination of the laws and the doctrine that’s doing that. But why not try following the first example and seeing how things go? Would the Vatican excommunicate members of an agency that stayed open and followed the law? Would they refuse them Mass if they didn’t remove “Catholic” from the name? What would the Vatican do if they chose to stay open? I’m genuinely interested here.

 

[irishpatrick]

Agreed. But that’s not the same as saying its the lawmakers making them close, it’s the combination of the laws and the doctrine that’s doing that. But why not try following the first example and seeing how things go? Would the Vatican excommunicate members of an agency that stayed open and followed the law? Would they refuse them Mass if they didn’t remove “Catholic” from the name? What would the Vatican do if they chose to stay open? I’m genuinely interested here.

The better question is: why would any Catholic choose to keep the agency open if it meant they had to go against the faith? In other words: why should they be forced to cease being Catholic?

 

[kaid100]

The better question is: why would any Catholic choose to keep the agency open if it meant they had to go against the faith? In other words: why should they be forced to cease being Catholic?

They might stay open because they wish to continue to help children find homes, and would-be-adopters find children. My question again: What would the Vatican do if a Catholic Agency chose to remain open in such conditions?

 

[irishpatrick]

They might stay open because they wish to continue to help children find homes, and would-be-adopters find children. My question again: What would the Vatican do if a Catholic Agency chose to remain open in such conditions?

Why would any faithful Catholic want to cease being Catholic? Sorry, but you must deal with that critical question because it forms the heart of this situation.

I am sure the Vatican would not look fondly upon such a situation, yet the Vatican does not have a police force to enfore its teachings.

 

[kaid100]

Why would any faithful Catholic want to cease being Catholic? Sorry, but you must deal with that critical question because it forms the heart of this situation.

I am sure the Vatican would not look fondly upon such a situation, yet the Vatican does not have a police force to enfore its teachings.

Plenty of Catholics I know, In fact all the ones I know personally, have made their peace with gays, work alongside gays and some have happily attended a Gay Wedding (which I know you would not literally consider a Wedding). It is not, therefore, a stretch to me to consider that a group of Catholics might follow this law. If they did, what would the Vatican (or the national Catholic leadership, if the Vatican is too remote) do in response?

 

[irishpatrick]

Plenty of Catholics I know, In fact all the ones I know personally, have made their peace with gays, work alongside gays and some have happily attended a Gay Wedding (which I know you would not literally consider a Wedding). It is not, therefore, a stretch to me to consider that a group of Catholics might follow this law. If they did, what would the Vatican (or the national Catholic leadership, if the Vatican is too remote) do in response?

Please, stop ducking my question, because if you want to understand this, then you need to face this critical question: why would any faithful Catholic want to cease being Catholic?

The Vatican would likely do nothing. A local Bishop could tell the agency to shut down–that is what happened in Boston in a similar situation.

BTW, this has NOTHING to do with personally knowing and living with/around gays. It also has nothing to do with showing gays as much love as anyone else deserves, gays are children of God just as much as straights. It has to do with being obedient to clear mandates of the faith. Faithful Catholics should love and support gays as they should love and support all people…but not in their sin. And, yes, you are quite right–those are not valid marriages.

 

[kaid100]

Please, stop ducking my question, because if you want to understand this, then you need to face this critical question: why would any faithful Catholic want to cease being Catholic?

The Vatican would likely do nothing. A local Bishop could tell the agency to shut down–that is what happened in Boston in a similar situation.

BTW, this has NOTHING to do with personally knowing and living with/around gays. It also has nothing to do with showing gays as much love as anyone else deserves, gays are children of God just as much as straights. It has to do with being obedient to clear mandates of the faith. Faithful Catholics should love and support gays as they should love and support all people…but not in their sin. And, yes, you are quite right–those are not valid marriages.

Ah ok that’s what I wanted to know: A local bishop would ask them to shut down. In answer to your question: because a Catholic might theoretically think that following laws banning discriminating against people solely on the basis of sexuality does not constituting “ceasing” to be a Catholic. It’s not a Commandment, after all, nor did Jesus ever make a reference to gays. And yes, I know Jesus and the Commandments spoke about adultery in general.

 

[Erich]

I’m not terribly impressed by people that say gays shouldn’t marry if they love each other, either.

Gay “marriage” isn’t about equal rights, it’s about SPECIAL rights.

What’s next? Marriage equality for polygamy, polyamory, or worse?

In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.

The man claims that the essential elements of marriage–love and commitment–are indeed present:“She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. … Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”

Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?

It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.

How much more pluralistic do you want to get?

 

[irishpatrick]

Ah ok that’s what I wanted to know: A local bishop would ask them to shut down. In answer to your question: because a Catholic might theoretically think that following laws banning discriminating against people solely on the basis of sexuality does not constituting “ceasing” to be a Catholic. It’s not a Commandment, after all, nor did Jesus ever make a reference to gays. And yes, I know Jesus and the Commandments spoke about adultery in general.

Two points:

1. It is simply not up to a lay Catholic to determine the faith for themselves. They are called and expected to be obedient even if they have troubles with certain teachings. Gay people are children of God, just as all others are. Yet, gays engaging in homosexual acts are commiting grave mortal sins just as a person commiting adultery is commiting grave mortal sins. Catholics simply cannot affirm people in grave sin and then think they are still good Catholics.
2. Your point about Jesus not saying anything about gays is an often spoken mistake. Jesus is God, and He has spoken many times about homosexuality (the entire Bible, OT and NT, comes from and through Jesus). Further, Jesus spoke quite directly about marriage, He always spoke of marriage between a man and a woman and He never once said there was any other configuration for marriage.

So, if Catholic agencies “choose” to allow gays to adopt, they are commiting grave mortal sin and they are standing against Jesus’ Church. I am not sure why any FAITHFUL Catholic would do that.

Please answer me this: would you be okay with two brothers marrying? How about an adult son marrying his adult father? How about a sterile mother marrying her adult son? If not, why not? (isn’t all about people who love each other?)

 

[kaid100]

Gay “marriage” isn’t about equal rights, it’s about SPECIAL rights.

What’s next? Marriage equality for polygamy, polyamory, or worse?

In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.

The man claims that the essential elements of marriage–love and commitment–are indeed present:“She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. … Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”

Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?

It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.

How much more pluralistic do you want to get?

OK, this is off topic so if you want to continue this it might be better to start a new thread, but as a one-off here:

As it happens I didn’t choose to bring up gay marriage, someone accused me of believing that churches should be forced to marry gays and I said actually I don’t think they should, but I don’t think churches should insist gays not be allowed to marry elsewhere either.

That said, in response to your comparisons: wanting to marry a horse is not equivalent because a horse cannot consent or understand what an institution resembling marriage might entail, which a human - even one of the same sex - can. Polygamous relationships generally involve one member being able to marry multipley and the other not allowed to, and in fact the other has no choice about their spouse re-re-marrying, they just have accept there will be a new person in their house sharing their spouse. Hardly a mutual relationship.

 

[irishpatrick]

OK, this is off topic so if you want to continue this it might be better to start a new thread, but as a one-off here:

As it happens I didn’t choose to bring up gay marriage, someone accused me of believing that churches should be forced to marry gays and I said actually I don’t think they should, but I don’t think churches should insist gays not be allowed to marry elsewhere either.

That said, in response to your comparisons: wanting to marry a horse is not equivalent because a horse cannot consent or understand what an institution resembling marriage might entail, which a human - even one of the same sex - can. Polygamous relationships generally involve one member being able to marry multipley and the other not allowed to, and in fact the other has no choice about their spouse re-re-marrying, they just have accept there will be a new person in their house sharing their spouse. Hardly a mutual relationship.

What about three unmmarried adults who deeply love each other and want to get marry (all three)?

What about four, or five, or six?

Be careful here, if you say no to those loving people you will be placing rules and boundaries around marriage.

 

[kaid100]

What about three unmmarried adults who deeply love each other and want to get marry (all three)?

What about four, or five, or six?

Be careful here, if you say no to those loving people you will be placing rules and boundaries around marriage.

I have no problem with rules and boundaries around marriage, I just don’t see why restricting gays from marriage is necessary. People can get by with one spouse, and marry one person. A gay person can’t “get by” with a member of the opposite sex: it leads to misery and repression for both parties. Your (church’s) argument is that gays should be celibate. I don’t agree. My last post on the subject of gay marriage on this thread, it is offtopic.

 

[zinger90]

Catholic Charities in most of Illinois has cut off all state funding rather than being forced to abandon their values. This is in response to a new law legalizing “civil unions” between homosexual couples which also had a small clause banning adoption agencies receiving state funding from refusing to offer adoption. Catholic Charities in Peoria, Joliet, and Springfield diocese have even filed lawsuits in the circuit court claiming that clause violates other state laws as well as their 1st amendment rights.

It’s pathetic how lawmakers are chipping away at liberty in the name of “liberty”. I cant wait until the next election so I can help vote these guys out of there.