Is it prudent for The Church in the US to be acting as an agent of The State

[Ignatius]

Recent actions by the current administration have raised the question, “is it prudent for The Catholic Church to be acting as an agent of The State”. The State, in this case the government of the US, is forcing immoral conditions on Church institutions such as Catholic hospitals, orphanages, adoption agencies, etc. in order to continue to to receive government support to do the Charitable and Educational work that The Church has always done. In other words, It is time for The Church to disentangle itself from the government and do the work for the poor without government interference?

 

[MarcoPolo]

In cases where the State demands the Church embrace the State’s immoral demands, the answer is either yes, disengage, or no, and abandon the service.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

As long as the Church receives monetary support from the state…the state will have it’s say.

 

[Ignatius]

As long as the Church receives monetary support from the state…the state will have it’s say.

Yes, I think that’s pretty much the heart of the problem. It would solve a lot of problems for The Church to extricated herself from entanglement with The State.

 

[Blue_Goose]

Yes, I think that’s pretty much the heart of the problem. It would solve a lot of problems for The Church to extricated herself from entanglement with The State.

I agree. It is time to let go.

 

[unstoppable_II]

As long as the Church receives monetary support from the state…the state will have it’s say.

Not always. It depends on what the contract says. If the government asks for something not in the contract, the contractor [in this case the Church] can refuse. In fact, it has a duty to refuse. If and when the contract comes up for renewal [and they all do eventually], the government can add some items if it wishes, but the contractor can decline to provide them, claiming some reason why not [e.g., lack of skilled personnel]. This might put the contractor out of the running for the contract.

P.S. The term “monetary support” is not accurate. It implies that the government is donating money to the Church. Rather, it is more aptly termed a fee for services rendered.

 

[Illmatic15]

Recent actions by the current administration have raised the question, “is it prudent for The Catholic Church to be acting as an agent of The State”. The State, in this case the government of the US, is forcing immoral conditions on Church institutions such as Catholic hospitals, orphanages, adoption agencies, etc. in order to continue to to receive government support to do the Charitable and Educational work that The Church has always done. In other words, It is time for The Church to disentangle itself from the government and do the work for the poor without government interference?

Yes, definitely. The modern state in general has proved itself to be in opposition to the Church and her teachings. First of all, we live in a country that allows you to kill your own child (provided he/she’s still in the womb), where the state has taken it upon themselves to define marriage (and at that, give the wrong definition), and where subsidiarity is dead and the federal government does things that can easily be done better by a smaller unit. This is not a group the Church should be entangling itself with! And the Church should always try to help the poor without govt help, this is the whole point of subsidiarity. Anyway, the Church and the State should cooperate (though it’s hard to do that in a place where any sort of mention of religion will send people into an explosive rage), but if the state embraced the modern idea of it having almighty power over the individual and religion, then perhaps it’s time to keep some distance.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Not always. It depends on what the contract says. If the government asks for something not in the contract, the contractor [in this case the Church] can refuse. In fact, it has a duty to refuse. If and when the contract comes up for renewal [and they all do eventually], the government can add some items if it wishes, but the contractor can decline to provide them, claiming some reason why not [e.g., lack of skilled personnel]. This might put the contractor out of the running for the contract.

P.S. The term “monetary support” is not accurate. It implies that the government is donating money to the Church. Rather, it is more aptly termed a fee for services rendered.

I see what you mean…and perhaps “monetary support” was not the right term.

I meant in terms of something like a Catholic hospital receiving Medicare payments, or perhaps a government funded research grant given to a university.

But there are those who would even claim that a religious tax exempt status could be considered a type of support.

 

[mkoopman]

Recent actions by the current administration have raised the question, “is it prudent for The Catholic Church to be acting as an agent of The State”. The State, in this case the government of the US, is forcing immoral conditions on Church institutions such as Catholic hospitals, orphanages, adoption agencies, etc. in order to continue to to receive government support to do the Charitable and Educational work that The Church has always done. In other words, It is time for The Church to disentangle itself from the government and do the work for the poor without government interference?

Does the state have the right to tax you for immoral acts perpetrated against the dignity of persons?

It seems the answer to these questions as they are proposed always says, Yes! Communist China has every right to appoint Bishops! And, the church should back down from the acts of mercy because the secular society has decided to make for profit and fat-cat bureaucratic agencies to fill these needs. They can never fulfill the need for individuals to uplift the dignity of others. The government is the one who should provide material support to persons engaged in social justice in response to the will of the people to provide for assistance that is properly suited to subsidiarity. Political goons who like to form new definitions of “human rights” to introduce more tyrannical litigation, legislation and taxation and government agencies may tell us to “get with it.” Cowering to these totalitarian demands is not the right course of action, ever.

We can not “offload” our responsibility for faith in charity to government action. Communism is not the fulfillment of the beatitudes, even if you believe that your government is specially ordained or exceptional - it does not work that way, now, or ever.

The church should teach the Gospel truth and church teachings in a way that the common person comes to better understand personal responsibility. That is how we must, “get with it,” and remain faithful to God’s will in our lives.

 

[didymus]

In cases where the State demands the Church embrace the State’s immoral demands, the answer is either yes, disengage, or no, and abandon the service.

I vote for abandon the service and start over with much smaller services funded entirely with our own money. It will be interesting to see if Catholics, esp. the social justice crowd step up. In my area our Evangelical brethren run several programs out of their own pockets. Of course, they preach and make a lot of converts in the progress but shouldn’t we also minister to the soul as well as the body?

I used to work for a “Catholic” agency but you couldn’t tell by looking. Not a crucifix anywhere, not even a portrait of the saint it was named after. We, and all the other agencies, incl. Catholic Charities were basically funded by the State and County but labored under a lot of regulation.

To put it bluntly, Catholic agencies serve as contractors (scabs if you will) doing jobs that should be done by more expensive State employees.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I vote for abandon the service and start over with much smaller services funded entirely with our own money. It will be interesting to see if Catholics, esp. the social justice crowd step up. In my area our Evangelical brethren run several programs out of their own pockets. Of course, they preach and make a lot of converts in the progress but shouldn’t we also minister to the soul as well as the body?

I used to work for a “Catholic” agency but you couldn’t tell by looking. Not a crucifix anywhere, not even a portrait of the saint it was named after. We, and all the other agencies, incl. Catholic Charities were basically funded by the State and County but labored under a lot of regulation.

To put it bluntly, Catholic agencies serve as contractors (scabs if you will) doing jobs that should be done by more expensive State employees.

Catholic Charities, schools, and other Catholic Social Programs can become exclusively Catholic. In other words…only serving Catholics and not accepting any government support. Non-Catholics could be courteously referred to state run programs and schools.
Catholic hospitals could reestablish themselves as part of the “Catholic Healthcare System” employing ONLY Catholics and serving ONLY Catholics. All Catholics would then be exempt from Obamacare.

 

[mkoopman]

Catholic Charities, schools, and other Catholic Social Programs can become exclusively Catholic. In other words…only serving Catholics and not accepting any government support. Non-Catholics could be courteously referred to state run programs and schools.
Catholic hospitals could reestablish themselves as part of the “Catholic Healthcare System” employing ONLY Catholics and serving ONLY Catholics. All Catholics would then be exempt from Obamacare.

The Catch-22 phrase of New Evangelization? You can not be Catholic in serving only “Catholic” persons, that is, since Catholic means Universal you must be the servant of all.

Don’t work too hard on that or you may be in line for that Section 8 that goes with Catch-22.

 

[Ignatius]

. . . . start over with much smaller services funded entirely with our own money. It will be interesting to see if Catholics, esp. the social justice crowd step up. In my area our Evangelical brethren run several programs out of their own pockets. Of course, they preach and make a lot of converts in the progress but shouldn’t we also minister to the soul as well as the body?

I used to work for a “Catholic” agency but you couldn’t tell by looking. Not a crucifix anywhere, not even a portrait of the saint it was named after. We, and all the other agencies, incl. Catholic Charities were basically funded by the State and County but labored under a lot of regulation.

To put it bluntly, Catholic agencies serve as contractors

Yes, exactly my point. We can provide for the needs(spiritual as well as material) in each community and not be beholden to The State.

 

[Ignatius]

Catholic Charities, schools, and other Catholic Social Programs can become exclusively Catholic. In other words…only serving Catholics and not accepting any government support. Non-Catholics could be courteously referred to state run programs and schools.
Catholic hospitals could reestablish themselves as part of the “Catholic Healthcare System” employing ONLY Catholics and serving ONLY Catholics. All Catholics would then be exempt from Obamacare.

No, we cannot in good conscience serve only Catholics. That is why ACA must be repealed.

 

[didymus]

Catholic Charities, schools, and other Catholic Social Programs can become exclusively Catholic. In other words…only serving Catholics and not accepting any government support. Non-Catholics could be courteously referred to state run programs and schools.
Catholic hospitals could reestablish themselves as part of the “Catholic Healthcare System” employing ONLY Catholics and serving ONLY Catholics. All Catholics would then be exempt from Obamacare.

NO! Not serving Catholics only, that defeats the whole point. As for employing Catholics only I’d change that to only those willing to comply with Church doctrine as ++Corleone is trying to do with the schools in S.f. schools.

 

[Ignatius]

NO! Not serving Catholics only, that defeats the whole point. As for employing Catholics only I’d change that to only those willing to comply with Church doctrine as ++Corleone is trying to do with the schools in S.f. schools.

 

[Personanongrata]

No, we cannot in good conscience serve only Catholics. That is why ACA must be repealed.

I was able to get good affordable healthcare via “Obamacare”. I’m not going to sit back and let other Catholics take it way. Sorry, you don’t get to choose MY heathcare.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
I meant in terms of something like a Catholic hospital receiving Medicare payments, or perhaps a government funded research grant given to a university.

But even these would be fees for service.

But there are those who would even claim that a religious tax exempt status could be considered a type of support.

And there are those who claim that taxing religious institutions is a type of restriction on “the free exercise thereof.”

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Sorry, you don’t get to choose MY heathcare.

In the end, someone’s will is going to be forced on the rest. That’s why we have elections and why all those people voted for obama: to force their choice on the rest of us.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Catch-22 phrase of New Evangelization? You can not be Catholic in serving only “Catholic” persons, that is, since Catholic means Universal you must be the servant of all.

Don’t work too hard on that or you may be in line for that Section 8 that goes with Catch-22.

Interesting point.

But before we get to far off course…let’s remember that the purpose of the Catholic Church is SALVATION. Not social services.