Chaput: 'It isn't possible to be pro-life and simultaneously forget the cries of the poor' [CNA]

[WilT]

There are many charities that keep their costs of fundraising - over head to a minimum … IMHO no person should donate to a charities that does not spend at least $0.85 for every $1.00 received to the purpose to which it is donated … I especially like charities that keep costs below 10% …Note a charities costs to operate can change every year - so do not forget to recheck them to make sure they haven’t moved from a focus on their mission to one that benefits someone’s pockets.

In Douglas County OR there is a charity that operates an orphanage in Mexico … they use 100% of every dollar donated for the purpose - none is used for fundraising or overhead

Charities have to file with the IRS - this information is available and people should check out charities before donating …

Charity Navigator and GuideStar are two websites to check out …

It’s all good! Thanx

 

[1newcatholic]

And Catholic Charities in Illionois and Mass.were forced out of the adoption ministry because they wouldn’t place children with homosexuals The Federal Govt shut down a Catholic ministry that cared for exploited women because they wouldn’t sanction abortion.
But it’s OK to vote for the people who implemented this because they" care" for the poor?

There is a difference between 1) choosing to close down your charity rather than comply with a new law and 2) being forced to close down your charity. You say “the Federal Govt shut down a Catholic ministry.” Is that what happened?

Some would say that the merely Federal Government enacted a new law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples, and that the Catholic charities you mention chose to discontinue its ministry rather than comply with the law.

Instead, they chose to adhere to their religious convictions (hooray America!). While they are free to exercise their religious rights by bowing out of a public ministry, that is not the same thing as being “forced” by the government to do anything.

edited note: I tried to edit this to include both of Estesbobs example, but didn’t get to it in time. you can see the original post in the response below.

 

[Poussin]

There is a difference between 1) choosing to close down your charity rather than comply with a new law and 2) being forced to close down your charity. You say “the Federal Govt shut down a Catholic ministry,” but if I recall correctly, that is not precisely what happened.

Rather, the Federal Government enacted a new law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples. The Catholic charity you mention chose to discontinue its ministry rather than comply with a new. Instead, they chose to adhere to a conviction that abandoned children would be better off in in orphanages than with parents of the same gender. While they are free to exercise their religious rights by bowing out of a public ministry, that is not the same thing as being “forced” by the government to do anything.

On my, can you be serious?! The government forced them to make a decision to either abandon their religious beliefs or give in to secularism. Yes, it is very much a forced coercion.

 

[1newcatholic]

On my, can you be serious?! The government forced them to make a decision to either abandon their religious beliefs or give in to secularism. Yes, it is very much a forced coercion.

Not being able to do everything you want

and being forced to do things you hate

are two very different things.

 

[Poussin]

Not being able to do everything you want

And being forced to do things you hate

are two different things.

Yet, is still a forced decision, as ‘but for’ the government, the decision would not have had to be made. Either way, it is still a blatant infringement of the free exercise clause.

 

[gracepoole]

Quoting three or four large paragraphs and responding with one link is ridiculous and does not live up to the discourse on this site.

Also, salon.com is a very biased source. Anyone who relies on the raw content of a site like that does so at his/her own risk.

Reading comprehension? The last card of a desperate progressive. :tsktsk:

Yup, this conservation is over.

Not everything is a righteous conservative vs. evil progressive face-off. It’s an exceptionally tiresome assumption that (wait for it) doesn’t “live up to the discourse on this site.” :yawn:

 

[1newcatholic]

Not everything is a righteous conservative vs. evil progressive face-off. It’s an exceptionally tiresome assumption that (wait for it) doesn’t “live up to the discourse on this site.” :yawn:

A forum moderator introduced be to a new feature you might like. There is a block-user function for posters who get tired of being anonymously attacked and mocked by self-appointed Catholic culture warriors.

It has vastly improved my forum experience. It makes dealing with children optional rather than mandatory.

(lol wait for it, nice)

 

[1newcatholic]

Yet, is still a forced decision, as ‘but for’ the government, the decision would not have had to be made. Either way, it is still a blatant infringement of the free exercise clause.

So you would be comfortable with non-Catholic groups running their adoption agencies according to their own private criteria? For example, could a KKK-friendly adoption agency refuse to place children in public care with families unless they were white? How about a Muslim agency that won’t place children with Christian families?

Which rules of religiously-based discrimination should be protected, and which should be eliminated?

“I will only do good works if the government doesn’t have a say in who I help.” ← not a Christlike disposition.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

A forum moderator introduced be to a new feature you might like. There is a block-user function for posters who get tired of being anonymously attacked and mocked by self-appointed Catholic culture warriors.

It has vastly improved my forum experience. It makes dealing with children optional rather than mandatory.

(lol wait for it, nice)

I can’t block any person on here because while there are some Catholics here who are in clear need of authentic Catholic teaching, if I block them, then I am failing in my responsibility to instruct the ignorant which is a Spiritual Work of mercy.

Funny thing about discrimination against homosexuals is that even they practice it although they deny it.

 

[gracepoole]

A forum moderator introduced be to a new feature you might like. There is a block-user function for posters who get tired of being anonymously attacked and mocked by self-appointed Catholic culture warriors.

It has vastly improved my forum experience. It makes dealing with children optional rather than mandatory.

(lol wait for it, nice)

Thank you!

 

[Poussin]

So you would be comfortable with non-Catholic groups running their adoption agencies according to their own private criteria? For example, could a KKK-friendly adoption agency refuse to place children in public care with families unless they were white? How about a Muslim agency that won’t place children with Christian families?

Which rules of religiously-based discrimination should be protected, and which should be eliminated?

“I will only do good works if the government doesn’t have a say in who I help.” ← not a Christlike disposition.

Correct, the 1st amendment would protect the KKK if they had sincere religious beliefs in that regards. The problem with your analogy practically, however, is the KKK is not a religious group and, therefore, would first have to establish they are protected under the 1st amendment free exercise clause. If they can, then yes, that is legitimate.

As for which rules of ‘religiously based discrimination should be protected’ the answer is ALL of them; thus why we have a 1st amendment. There is no Constitutional right to secular progressive policies, there is a Constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Now that may be an inconvenient truth to some, but that is how the Constitution is written. All laws discriminate, by the way, the question is what kind of discrimination is allowed. Religions are protected in that regards.

As for the description of not supporting a government cause as being un “Christ-like”, that is a baseless premise. There is no ‘Christ-like’ obligation to support government charities, other than not breaking the law.

 

[1newcatholic]

I can’t block any person on here because while there are some Catholics here who are in clear need of authentic Catholic teaching, if I block them, then I am failing in my responsibility to instruct the ignorant which is a Spiritual Work of mercy.

Funny thing about discrimination against homosexuals is that even they practice it although they deny it.

Well, suffice it to say, no one is perfect.

 

[estesbob]

There is a difference between 1) choosing to close down your charity rather than comply with a new law and 2) being forced to close down your charity. You say “the Federal Govt shut down a Catholic ministry.” Is that what happened?

Some would say that the merely Federal Government enacted a new law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples, and that the Catholic charities you mention chose to discontinue its ministry rather than comply with the law.

Instead, they chose to adhere to their religious convictions (hooray America!). While they are free to exercise their religious rights by bowing out of a public ministry, that is not the same thing as being “forced” by the government to do anything.

edited note: I tried to edit this to include both of Estesbobs example, but didn’t get to it in time. you can see the original post in the response below.

There is no difference at all.The Govt forced the Church out of ministries they had been involved in for centuries.You can rationalize that if all you want but it seems rather difficult to on one hand be arguing wee need to hear the voice of the poor while on the other hand rationalizing the govt forcing the Church out of helping the poor.

 

[estesbob]

Correct, the 1st amendment would protect the KKK if they had sincere religious beliefs in that regards. The problem with your analogy practically, however, is the KKK is not a religious group and, therefore, would first have to establish they are protected under the 1st amendment free exercise clause. If they can, then yes, that is legitimate.

As for which rules of ‘religiously based discrimination should be protected’ the answer is ALL of them; thus why we have a 1st amendment. There is no Constitutional right to secular progressive policies, there is a Constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Now that may be an inconvenient truth to some, but that is how the Constitution is written. All laws discriminate, by the way, the question is what kind of discrimination is allowed. Religions are protected in that regards.

As for the description of not supporting a government cause as being un “Christ-like”, that is a baseless premise. There is no ‘Christ-like’ obligation to support government charities, other than not breaking the law.

One slight correction to an a great post. There is no such thing as government charities. The government isn’t capable of being charitable.

 

[estesbob]

A forum moderator introduced be to a new feature you might like. There is a block-user function for posters who get tired of being anonymously attacked and mocked by self-appointed Catholic culture warriors.

It has vastly improved my forum experience. It makes dealing with children optional rather than mandatory.

(lol wait for it, nice)

The Blocking function has been part of the forums since the day they were started. I don’t use it. When you start blocking people you are often cutting out the people who need to have the Catholic faith explained to them the most . On the other hand I see many people who block posters because having the Catholic faith explained to them makes them extremely uncomfortable when trying to reconcile it with their politics

 

[estesbob]

So you would be comfortable with non-Catholic groups running their adoption agencies according to their own private criteria? For example, could a KKK-friendly adoption agency refuse to place children in public care with families unless they were white? How about a Muslim agency that won’t place children with Christian families?

Which rules of religiously-based discrimination should be protected, and which should be eliminated?

“I will only do good works if the government doesn’t have a say in who I help.” ← not a Christlike disposition.

When you try to make a point by comparing Catholic charities to the KKK you should re-examine whether you have a point at all. Catholics need to ask themselves a very simple question. Does my faith form my politics or does my politics form my faith? If your faith comes first then the answer as to whether the government should be able to force Catholic charities out of the adoption business and not allow them to help exploited women becomes self-evident

 

[Jeanne_S]

A forum moderator introduced be to a new feature you might like. There is a block-user function for posters who get tired of being anonymously attacked and mocked by self-appointed Catholic culture warriors.

It has vastly improved my forum experience. It makes dealing with children optional rather than mandatory.

(lol wait for it, nice)

Pot calling kettle black

 

[SWolf]

One slight correction to an a great post. There is no such thing as government charities. The government isn’t capable of being charitable.

Just want to make sure everyone reads this.

The government isn’t capable of being charitable.

 

[WilT]

Just want to make sure everyone reads this.

The government isn’t capable of being charitable.

If I were blind I could still read this posting

 

[1newcatholic]

Pot calling kettle black

Racist.