Home > News > Breaking news Judge hears arguments in Catholic Charities case

[Orleans_Attny]

Lawyers for the Illinois Attorney General argued that Catholic Charities’ policy of licensing only married couples and single parents living alone as foster parents, while referring couples in civil unions to other agencies, violates state anti-discrimination laws that now accommodate couples in civil unions.

But lawyers for Catholic Charities argued that the agencies had a reasonable expectation that the contracts wouldn’t end without sufficient warning or a public hearing, given the decades that they have existed and the infrastructure that has been built around them.

LINK

Pax,
OA

 

[Norminha]

Certain civil authorities ignore the definition of marriage. Same-sex unions is the not equivalent to marriage. Children need a dad and a mom to grow a healthy emotional life.
Our Church does not have to give in to the “culture of relativism,” as our Holy Father says.

 

[PaulinVA]

Orleans Attny, what do you think of this from a purely legal point of view?

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Orleans Attny, what do you think of this from a purely legal point of view?

I haven’t read any of the pleadings, so it’s hard to form an opinion. At first blush, however, these seem to be two sophisticated contracting parties. And courts generally favor upholding the agreement between the two - even if it’s a not-so-great agreement. Moreover, if the law has changed so that a formerly legal arrangement is now illegal (perhaps because of a sexual-orientation discrimination law) then you can’t contractually mandate that another party break the law. I don’t know much about the case; maybe the Church has a good argument - maybe they were hoping to settle - maybe they’re just grasping at straws. It’s hard to tell.

Ultimately, I think this case is an example of something I’ve believed for a couple years now: The Catholic Church’s social services will be scaled back in the U.S. through laws that require the respect of acts that the Church finds immoral. E.g., same-sex adoption tied to orphanages, birth-control covered under health insurance forecloses employer health insurance under Catholic charities, federally funded charities or hospitals must not discriminate on sexual orientation - or must permit family planning and abortion services, etc.

I can’t help but wonder if the Church in America will be serving far fewer poor and needy people in 10 years than it does now.

Pax,
OA

 

[PaulinVA]

Ultimately, I think this case is an example of something I’ve believed for a couple years now: The Catholic Church’s social services will be scaled back in the U.S. through laws that require the respect of acts that the Church finds immoral. E.g., same-sex adoption tied to orphanages, birth-control covered under health insurance forecloses employer health insurance under Catholic charities, federally funded charities or hospitals must not discriminate on sexual orientation - or must permit family planning and abortion services, etc.

I can’t help but wonder if the Church in America will be serving far fewer poor and needy people in 10 years than it does now.

Pax,
OA

It is indeed sad. So terrible we find ourselves in this position.

I agree that this will probably be happening. Are there entities to take the place of Catholic Charities?

 

[JimG]

I’m not a lawyer, but it may be that Catholic Charities will be forced out of business in a lot of places. A Catholic organization cannot place children with unmarried or cohabiting couples or with those in homosexual unions. It would violate their principles and be an injustice to children. If that policy is not legal from the State’s point of view, much of Catholic Charities may be doomed, and society will be worse off for turning those clients over to secular agencies operating from immoral principles.

 

[PaulinVA]

I was about to say that it was luckily only the adoption business, but that’s not true.

They offer sliding-scale counseling services - what if a gay couple asks for marriage counseling?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I haven’t read any of the pleadings, so it’s hard to form an opinion. At first blush, however, these seem to be two sophisticated contracting parties. And courts generally favor upholding the agreement between the two - even if it’s a not-so-great agreement. Moreover, if the law has changed so that a formerly legal arrangement is now illegal (perhaps because of a sexual-orientation discrimination law) then you can’t contractually mandate that another party break the law. I don’t know much about the case; maybe the Church has a good argument - maybe they were hoping to settle - maybe they’re just grasping at straws. It’s hard to tell.

Ultimately, I think this case is an example of something I’ve believed for a couple years now: The Catholic Church’s social services will be scaled back in the U.S. through laws that require the respect of acts that the Church finds immoral. E.g., same-sex adoption tied to orphanages, birth-control covered under health insurance forecloses employer health insurance under Catholic charities, federally funded charities or hospitals must not discriminate on sexual orientation - or must permit family planning and abortion services, etc.

I can’t help but wonder if the Church in America will be serving far fewer poor and needy people in 10 years than it does now.

Pax,
OA

I heard on NPR this morning that the court ruled that nobody has a right to expect to contract with the state.

I think the Church will be able to channel its charitable arm in other venues. I would like to see subsidizing Catholic primary and secondary schools.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I was about to say that it was luckily only the adoption business, but that’s not true.

They offer sliding-scale counseling services - what if a gay couple asks for marriage counseling?

They’ll get and earful!