No idle talk-Archbishop says he will close Catholic Charities rather than compromise Church teaching

[vern_humphrey]

This one is being singled out by the Colorado legislature. They’re the ones passing laws relating to this area.

There have been other issues I’ve seen that relate to employment. I remember reading of a teacher in a Catholic school who was an escort for an abortion provider. She was terminated. I’ve also read of a Catholic school teacher who divorced and remarried; he was also terminated. There have been issues relating to insurance – in California any employer paying for prescription drugs also has to pay for contraceptives. While the bishops fought this in court, the court decided that Catholic Charities did not meet the requirements for a religious exemption to the law.

In my opinion, working for the Church is more than just a job. A church employee shouldn’t take public positions that are contrary to the Church’s teachings. And the Church shouldn’t be forced to submit to the state on religious issues.

Absolutely. The Church has a right not to take cuckoos into her nest.

(Now before the Politically Correct crowd jumps in, a cuckoo, like a cowbird, lays its eggs in another specie’s nest. The hatchlings are fed by the host birds, and drive out the host birds’ own hatchlings.)

 

[johnstown_johnn]

No but values and repentance are definitely Catholic. Publicly practicing homosexuals are sinners that refuse to change. Repentance and the good will effort to change are a large part of reconciliation. I’m sorry does not cut it with out the turning away from the confessed sin.

**Very sobering thought ! **

 

[grandfather]

The Catholics of Colorado should get on their knees and thank God for having one of the six or seven bishops in the country who is Catholic.

 

[Yerusalyim]

And that’s the way it ought to be – we stop being Couch Potato Catholics, suit up and get in the game ourselves, instead of expecting someone else to move the ball while we sit on the sofa and watch.

And yet so many Catholics continue to vote for the members of the political party that supports such nonsense.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And yet so many Catholics continue to vote for the members of the political party that supports such nonsense.

Yes, we do – and if you follow many threads here, you will see how some Catholics tie themselves in knots to justify their support for pro-abortion politicians.

Abortion is our sin. We are guilty because we had a chance to prevent it, and threw it away.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It seems to me that since we have a Christ-mandated obligation to care for the poor, Catholic Charities should continue to operate, minus the government funding and smaller in scope if it comes to that. Just to close it is unthinkable.

Archbishop Chaput has not said that he will no longer “care for the poor.” There are many ways to care for the poor without “Catholic Charities.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Archbishop Chaput has not said that he will no longer “care for the poor.” There are many ways to care for the poor without “Catholic Charities.”

And as I have pointed out before, it is only a myth that there is a vault of government money mouldering away for lack of people willing to spend it. If the money is appropriated for charity, it will be spent for charity – it won’t decay in the vault for lack of Catholics to do the spending.

Let us pay for our own charity, with money that we give freely – after all, what merit is there in spending money that was taken by force of law from other people?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

See also:

**The Extreme Injustice of HB 1080
**by Bishop Michael Sheridan
Bishop of Colorado Springs

***Opinions ******HB 1080: How to Write A Really Bad Bill ***
by Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[Yerusalyim]

Yes, we do – and if you follow many threads here, you will see how some Catholics tie themselves in knots to justify their support for pro-abortion politicians.

Abortion is our sin. We are guilty because we had a chance to prevent it, and threw it away.

I am personally not a single issue voter, but the pro-life stance of the politician is a very important consideration.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I do not see the government as a “enemy” here. Discrimination is not a Catholic value. If there is a valid reason they cannot do the job, fine, but not on a personal matter such as sexual orientation. This is only hurting the Church on so many levels as heels are being dug in over this.

**The Church will never aline itself in a charity if it means a tacit tolerance of the abomination of sodomy. The Church, should it co-sponsor “charities” with the Gay Community, will find itself, down the road, announcing nuptuals for Same-Sex marriages…this will NEVER, NEVER happen.

The orientation has no place in the spititual pursuits of eternal life…if it is not reversed or at least neutralized, the spiritual growth is grieviously impaired. Counselling is always available to move those away from that deviation. BUT, there must be a will to move away. ALL things are possible with God. **

 

[grandfather]

I am personally not a single issue voter, but the pro-life stance of the politician is a very important consideration.

So a tax issue, or labor issue, or a health insurance bill, might outweigh the issue of publicly sanctioned infanticide?

Maybe if thousands of innocents are being tortured to death in partial birth abortion by having their brains sucked out in the birth process as they are ready to take their first breath and your senator is good on jobs you should vote for him.

If you were in Nazi Germany and Jews, gypsies and other less worthies were being carted off, but the regime made you prosperous and restored nationalist pride it would have been ok.

 

[Lance]

We are ALL sinners, no exceptions. Why is this one singled out? (though it is not a sin if they are in a monogamous long-term relationship)

It then is a sin of discrimination towards others based on a “hot-button issue” of the day. This is exclusion plain and simple. I thought we were beyond it as a society and Church until this popped up in Denver, Boston, and San Fran Catholic Charities incidents.

So you believe a Jewish charity should be forced to hire a self professed neo-Nazi who can do the job. Right? If not why not?

 

[jimmy]

I read it that the law would only apply to those entities which accepted state or federal funding, so yes, it is unthinkable that the bishop would consider closing the charity before asking the faithful to dig deeper and continuing the charitable operations with private donations.

I think part of the problem may be simply that they are a non profit organization. The fact that they are non profit and that they do not pay taxes might mean that they would have to follow the new law. If they are forced to follow the new law by the state then I would have to agree with the bishop.

I will tell you this. It seems that this country is quickly moving toward tyranny. Any country that would hinder the charitable actions of people is a tyranny as far as I can see.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am personally not a single issue voter, but the pro-life stance of the politician is a very important consideration.

I don’t know of any single issue voters.

But there is a question I keep asking over and over: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and another who espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So you believe a Jewish charity should be forced to hire a self professed neo-Nazi who can do the job. Right? If not why not?

Good question. This hits home the point very well.

 

[MiddleBear]

People - we need to fight, now not later. We have to stop this stuff before it can go any further.

Elections are coming. - Make sure of your vote.

CAF has banned discussion of candidates.

 

[Lurch104]

CAF has banned discussion of candidates.

Unless I missed something, the poster did not mention a candidate, but an issue.

I understand that some who post here are very pleased that CAF has decided to not allow us to highlight how some of the candidates support abortion (very courageous BTW for CA), but the glee in that ban is getting out of hand.

“My candidate/party/I support(s) abortion and I am upset that you called me out on it…I’m telling mom/moderators.”

I have seen something to that effect several times over that last few weeks and it makes me sick. We are bound as Catholics to not only believe but proclaim of faith by both words and actions. We should really try to remember that.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Unless I missed something, the poster did not mention a candidate, but an issue.

I understand that some who post here are very pleased that CAF has decided to not allow us to highlight how some of the candidates support abortion (very courageous BTW for CA), but the glee in that ban is getting out of hand.

“My candidate/party/I support(s) abortion and I am upset that you called me out on it…I’m telling mom/moderators.”

I have seen something to that effect several times over that last few weeks and it makes me sick. We are bound as Catholics to not only believe but proclaim of faith by both words and actions. We should really try to remember that.

Thank you Lurch. The issues are not banned as far as I can see. Just the specific mention of a person. So we all need to do our homework.

 

[Ignatius]

It seems to me that since we have a Christ-mandated obligation to care for the poor, Catholic Charities should continue to operate, minus the government funding and smaller in scope if it comes to that. .

If the money is not there to keep it open, it will have to close, morals cannot be compromised to obtain financing.

 

[john1863]

If the money is not there to keep it open, it will have to close, morals cannot be compromised to obtain financing.

Geezerbob was absolutely correct, IMHO, governmental money should have nothing to do with charitable works. If, and I doubt this, Catholic Charities was relying on the various governments for support, then shame on us.

John