Groups lose nearly $300,000 from Catholic charity over gay marriage issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracepoole

Guest
When a statewide immigrant-rights coalition endorsed same-sex marriage this past spring, 11 groups were given a stark choice by a Roman Catholic anti-poverty program: Leave the coalition, or lose their Catholic funding.
Click to expand...
Eight of the groups decided to stick with the Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights. Another group broke with both. All told, the nine groups gave up grants totaling nearly $300,000 from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. This week, some began scaling back projects that address domestic violence, affordable housing and immigration rights.
Click to expand...
The decision marks a rift between secular and Catholic leaders who had long been aligned in the push for immigrant rights in the United States. Church leaders say that chasm has been widened by a national movement to link gay rights and immigration reform.
Click to expand...
“We don’t have a formal stance on marriage equality,” said Jenny Arwade, executive director of the Albany Park Neighborhood Council, which this week reduced the size of an after-school program that taught bicycle mechanics to neighborhood teens. “Our organizational values are that we believe in equal rights for all people. We were disappointed in the decision. We also believe it’s the church’s decision to do what they want to do.”
Click to expand...
articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-18/news/chi-groups-lose-nearly-300000-from-catholic-charity-over-gay-marriage-issue-20131018_1_catholic-campaign-gay-marriage-issue-teachings
 
The problem of so-called “gay marriage” has been very divisive for America.
 
There are other charities that help with immigration issues, affordable housing and help with helping domestic violence victims that have not endorsed homosexual marriage that could be given funding instead. Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights made a choice to endorse homosexual marriage and could they expect a Catholic organisation to fund them after the endorsement!
 
I think the bottom line is this: Why does anyone need my permission to live how they want? Why was this an issue at the voting booth? Why do I need to hear, 24/7, about anybody’s sexual orientation? What happened to privacy?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I think the bottom line is this: Why does anyone need my permission to live how they want? Why was this an issue at the voting booth? Why do I need to hear, 24/7, about anybody’s sexual orientation? What happened to privacy?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Amen to that! And watch, there will only be a small number of gays getting married (esp among the men) or a very high number of divorces.

The government could have given homo-sexual couples next-of-kin rights without “gay marriage.” Next-of-kin rights is really all that most wanted anyway
 
Jeanne_S said:
Yes this is true,but not because of their sexual preference which is disordered,but on spite of it.
Click to expand...
LGBT individuals are NOT “disordered.” Their sexual identity is NOT “disordered.” Their natural desire for companionship and intimacy is NOT “disordered”. It should be affirmed and celebrated just as you are to be affirmed and celebrated.
 
edwest2 said:
I think the bottom line is this: Why does anyone need my permission to live how they want? Why was this an issue at the voting booth? Why do I need to hear, 24/7, about anybody’s sexual orientation? What happened to privacy?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
No kidding. Sometimes it’s too much information. ( time out sign)
 
LiberalPrincess said:
LGBT individuals are NOT “disordered.” Their sexual identity is NOT “disordered.” Their natural desire for companionship and intimacy is NOT “disordered”. It should be affirmed and celebrated just as you are to be affirmed and celebrated.
Click to expand...
So much for a Catholic response…

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

They aren’t “disordered” people, but their “natural desire” is disordered. Their acting on those desires is a “grave depravity.”

So…does the Catechism “sicken” you?
 
LiberalPrincess said:
LGBT individuals are NOT “disordered.” Their sexual identity is NOT “disordered.” Their natural desire for companionship and intimacy is NOT “disordered”. It should be affirmed and celebrated just as you are to be affirmed and celebrated.
Click to expand...
You might want to check the Catechism see what the Church teaches re this issue.
Try separating your feel good emotions from this issue,look at it logically.God made man and woman for a reason to procreate,surely you have had a basic biology class and understand how procreation,as God intended is impossible with SS relationships?
 
LiberalPrincess said:
Because for some, their faith informs them that EVERYONE should be treated with dignity, equality and respect.
Click to expand...
True, EVERYONE, as an individual ought to be treated with dignity, equality and respect, but that does not entail the behaviours that individuals engage in are, thereby, legitimized or ought to be promoted.

The reason this has become a contentious issue is because same sex behaviour, like the proverbial camel under the tent, has been conflated with the individual’s dignity under the guise that the behaviour is simply an aspect of who the person is in order to legitimize the behaviour.

We would certainly resist allowing such a move with other behaviours such as rape, murder or theft, nor even with proclivities or “inclinations” such as alcoholism, drug addiction, nymphomania or kleptomania, on the grounds that the person is never to be identified with a behaviour and their dignity, as a person, should not depend upon how they act.

It has been said that the person is more than what they do. Yet with same sex behaviour, just the opposite has occurred. The person is identified with what they do. Why should they be?

It is in the very presumption that “gay” individuals are unique as individuals that makes it appear that decrying their behaviour or inclination is the same as disrespecting them as individuals. That presumption is precisely the logical error that ought to be avoided.

The fact that individuals who have any unwanted proclivities or engage, generally, in immoral behaviour does not entail that, as individuals, they ought to be treated with indignity, inequality and disrespect. Yet, NEVER, in any of these instances, has the need to treat all individuals respectfully - even those who commit unfortunate acts such as theft or engage in immoral behaviour - led to the necessity of accepting, allowing or promoting the questionable behaviour or action, itself. Why should it automatically do so where same sex behaviour is concerned?
 
Jeanne_S said:
You might want to check the Catechism see what the Church teaches re this issue.
Try separating your feel good emotions from this issue,look at it logically.God made man and woman for a reason to procreate,surely you have had a basic biology class and understand how procreation,as God intended is impossible with SS relationships?
Click to expand...
I’m knowledgeable of the CCC’s position on homosexual behavior. And I’d still caution against referring to your opponent’s position as one based solely on “feel good emotions.” Creating this straw man won’t allow for actual engagement on this topic. I’d also caution against viewing pathos as somehow ill-fitting when discussing human relationships.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m knowledgeable of the CCC’s position on homosexual behavior. And I’d still caution against referring to your opponent’s position as one based solely on “feel good emotions.” Creating this straw man won’t allow for actual engagement on this topic. I’d also caution against viewing pathos as somehow ill-fitting when discussing human relationships.
Click to expand...
Gee,I’m not the one who responded with my comments enlarged in bold print.
Which to me ,seemd emotionally charged.
You are entitled to your opinion,however at don’t agree.
As a another poster stated,the homosexual person is now being defined soley by their sexual preference,and we as a society are being told to not only to tolerate this preference but to accept it to the extent that it is to be normalized.
This to the detrimate of our children and society as a whole.
Again,it is not the person,or even SSA that is sinful,it is acting n it,which Liberal Princess,seems to believe is ok,even though it is apparent she hasn’t given much thought to
why this is against God’s natural law.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Gee,I’m not the one who responded with my comments enlarged in bold print.
Which to me ,seemd emotionally charged.
You are entitled to your opinion,however at don’t agree.
As a another poster stated,the homosexual person is now being defined soley by their sexual preference,and we as a society are being told to not only to tolerate this preference but to accept it to the extent that it is to be normalized.
This to the detrimate of our children and society as a whole.
Again,it is not the person,or even SSA that is sinful,it is acting n it,which Liberal Princess,seems to believe is ok,even though it is apparent she hasn’t given much thought to
why this is against God’s natural law.
Click to expand...
Sorry – I hadn’t meant to attack you. I just think that if one wants to provide the strongest argument possible, one must address the reality of the opponent’s position. But I’m speaking in generalizations here and not specifically in terms of your response to a specific poster here. The “one” I’m referring to here could be you or anyone who shares your position.
 
To Phil19034,

That is proving to be the case. In States where gay -so-called marriage is legal, most gays are not getting married. And now they are fighting for gay divorce. I’ve seen no solid numbers but it is happening. I wish nothing bad for gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons but the way everything was set up, and the constant accusations against total strangers… That was wrong. Of the gay, lesbian and bisexual people I worked with, I could care less what they did after work. We got along. I had no phobia about any of them. But that changed. Privacy went out the window. And the accusations started.

Peace,
Ed
 
While traditionalists are turning gay marriage into a moral, religious, and political debate, and treating the stories of LGBT individuals as objects to be scorned, MILLIONS of LGBT individuals are deep in pain.

I think Jesus would probably sit next to them, listen to their stories, ask good questions, and agree to walk through life with them, loving them the whole way.

I don’t think He would engage in online debates about whether or not their very existence is moral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top