Please write to the editor of the LA diocese newspaper Tidings. This is outrageous!

[fix]

frommi:

I disagree with that. Many people who claim to be obeying Rome simply are not doing so. “Rome” speaks about many things that people do not subscribe to. Rome speaks about the environment, Rome speaks out about war, etc.

What you are really talking about is listening to Rome on the issues of abortion, birth control, and the issues surrounding homosexuality.

If you are going to say you “follow the teaching of the Roman pontiff”, then you would have to indeed do that. Following a handful of teachings whole heartedly and ignoring others if the very definiton of cafeteria catholicism.

That is a misrepresentation of the issues. You intentionally try to lump all issues together and then make the claim one is unfaithful if one actually follows what Rome says.

You know well there are issues that are prudential that ask Catholics to discern the best way to apply Church teaching.

Nice try, but no one will buy it.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

A little off the subject:

Does anyone know if Bishop O’Malley took a stand to stop Catholic Charities from allowing homosexual couples to adopt children?

catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?channel_id=1&article_id=3545

 

[Penny_Plain]

GloriaPatri4:

Does anyone know if Bishop O’Malley took a stand to stop Catholic Charities from allowing homosexual couples to adopt children?

Don’t know.

You do understand why Catholic Charities allows this, don’t you? From the article you linked:

Father Hehir doesn’t disagree. Earlier this year, when talk surfaced that Catholic Charities might be helping homosexuals adopt, he told the Register that homosexual placement “is never a good fit” for the agency. But he said it was still the best choice that could be made under the circumstances: the state department of social services’ requirement in Catholic Charities’ contract that it place foster children in a non-discriminatory manner.

To be able to place any foster children, the state requires CC to place all children in a non-discriminatory manner. The state of Massachusetts defines that to include placement with homosexual couples.

Tough choice. CC can either: (1) place children with homosexual couples, realizing that the Church teaches this is not an ideal environment; or (2) place no children at all. The state does not allow a middle ground, it seems.

Given the state’s rules, this doesn’t seem like a tough call to me. If we do good only when there no association with “evil” or “evil people” (I know I’m generalizing), then we pass up a lot of opportunities to do good, don’t we? And we are called to do good.

Our God can turn evil to good. He can turn foolishness to wisdom. (Yes, I’m still waiting…) Someday we’ll enter the New Jersualem, where every tear shall be wiped away and everything will be good and pure. We’re not there yet.

While we’re waiting, we are called to help the unfortunate. People don’tt get a lot more unfortunate than little children sent to live with strangers. So we help.

Seems easy to me.

 

[frommi]

fix:

That is a misrepresentation of the issues. You intentionally try to lump all issues together and then make the claim one is unfaithful if one actually follows what Rome says.

You know well there are issues that are prudential that ask Catholics to discern the best way to apply Church teaching.

Nice try, but no one will buy it.

I’m not lumping issues together…the statement I often hear is “I’m loyal to the Pope”. Loyalty seems to imply that you would listen to what he says.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Penny Plain:

You do understand why Catholic Charities allows this, don’t you? From the article you linked:

Yes, Penny I do understand. My question was if anyone knew what position Bishop O’Malley took. I had not followed the story.
Penny Plain:

To be able to place any foster children, the state requires CC to place all children in a non-discriminatory manner. The state of Massachusetts defines that to include placement with homosexual couples.

Tough choice. CC can either: (1) place children with homosexual couples, realizing that the Church teaches this is not an ideal environment; or (2) place no children at all. The state does not allow a middle ground, it seems.

Given the state’s rules, this doesn’t seem like a tough call to me. If we do good only when there no association with “evil” or “evil people” (I know I’m generalizing), then we pass up a lot of opportunities to do good, don’t we? And we are called to do good.

Our God can turn evil to good. He can turn foolishness to wisdom. (Yes, I’m still waiting…) Someday we’ll enter the New Jersualem, where every tear shall be wiped away and everything will be good and pure. We’re not there yet.

While we’re waiting, we are called to help the unfortunate. People don’tt get a lot more unfortunate than little children sent to live with strangers. So we help.

Seems easy to me.

I don’t have the time or emotional energy to argue this one this morning.

 

[fix]

frommi:

I’m not lumping issues together…the statement I often hear is “I’m loyal to the Pope”. Loyalty seems to imply that you would listen to what he says.

Yes, that is true. It also implies that bishops, priests, catholic charities, etc are loyal as well.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

Don’t know.

You do understand why Catholic Charities allows this, don’t you? From the article you linked:

To be able to place any foster children, the state requires CC to place all children in a non-discriminatory manner. The state of Massachusetts defines that to include placement with homosexual couples.

Tough choice. CC can either: (1) place children with homosexual couples, realizing that the Church teaches this is not an ideal environment; or (2) place no children at all. The state does not allow a middle ground, it seems.

Given the state’s rules, this doesn’t seem like a tough call to me. If we do good only when there no association with “evil” or “evil people” (I know I’m generalizing), then we pass up a lot of opportunities to do good, don’t we? And we are called to do good.

Our God can turn evil to good. He can turn foolishness to wisdom. (Yes, I’m still waiting…) Someday we’ll enter the New Jersualem, where every tear shall be wiped away and everything will be good and pure. We’re not there yet.

While we’re waiting, we are called to help the unfortunate. People don’tt get a lot more unfortunate than little children sent to live with strangers. So we help.

Seems easy to me.

We may never do evil even if good comes of it. The Church has said placing children in such an environment does them violence. The ends never justify the means. No unjust law needs to complied with.

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

No unjust law needs to complied with.

You and I are never going to agree on the rest of your post, but I’m curious about this.

Are you saying that Catholic Charities should continue to do foster care placements but refuse to place children with homosexual couples, even though this violates the law?

I mean, I understand the principle you’re stating. I don’t understand how you’re applying it here.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

You and I are never going to agree on the rest of your post, but I’m curious about this.

Are you saying that Catholic Charities should continue to do foster care placements but refuse to place children with homosexual couples, even though this violates the law?

I mean, I understand the principle you’re stating. I don’t understand how you’re applying it here.

I am not aware of all the alternatives available as I am not an attorney, but the short answer is of course no children should be placed with homosexual couples. Should Catholic Charities give referrals to Planned Parenthood if the state required it?

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

I am not aware of all the alternatives available as I am not an attorney, but the short answer is of course no children should be placed with homosexual couples. Should Catholic Charities give referrals to Planned Parenthood if the state required it?

Of course not.

I think the state can only require CC to do something in the context of a program for which CC gets state money. So if CC was using state funds to do pregnancy counseling, then the state can put conditions on the pregnancy counseling program.

I think that’s what’s happening here. The state licenses CC to do foster care placements and gives them money. In return for the license and the money, CC has to agree to the state’s conditions, one of which is placement according to the state’s definition of non-discriminatory.

It seems to me that the choices are to (1) stop doing the placements or (2) do them according to the state’s rules. I was curious (in a non-combative sort of way) to know whether you saw a third way.

 

[koda]

fix:

That is a misrepresentation of the issues. You intentionally try to lump all issues together and then make the claim one is unfaithful if one actually follows what Rome says.

You know well there are issues that are prudential that ask Catholics to discern the best way to apply Church teaching.

Nice try, but no one will buy it.

Actually, I’ll buy it. I’ve seen evidence of it on this forum time and time again. The same person who lambasts you for birth control thinks nuclear weapons are a great idea and we should use one soon. And this is just one example. There are a lot of folks who seem to come to this forum only for the self satisfaction they get from telling everyone else what terrible sinners they are. Sad, but true.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Penny Plain:

Of course not.

I think the state can only require CC to do something in the context of a program for which CC gets state money. So if CC was using state funds to do pregnancy counseling, then the state can put conditions on the pregnancy counseling program.

I think that’s what’s happening here. The state licenses CC to do foster care placements and gives them money. In return for the license and the money, CC has to agree to the state’s conditions, one of which is placement according to the state’s definition of non-discriminatory.

It seems to me that the choices are to (1) stop doing the placements or (2) do them according to the state’s rules. I was curious (in a non-combative sort of way) to know whether you saw a third way.

I think CC proves what the Lord says about serving two masters. It takes the state’s money and follows the state rules. It takes the Church’s money and follows the state rules.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

frommi:

Well, you see that would be the type of “Pro-Life” most people practice…they are “Pro-Life” from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. Then it simply doesn’t matter anymore to many of them (especially the politicians).

I’m sorry that you believe that most pro-life people are only pro-life from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. That is very sad indeed. All of the Catholic pro-life people that I know are pro-life from the moment of conception until natural death. While some may have a particular calling to focus on the unborn, none support the killing of those who are already born.

 

[frommi]

ElizabethAnne:

I’m sorry that you believe that most pro-life people are only pro-life from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. That is very sad indeed. All of the Catholic pro-life people that I know are pro-life from the moment of conception until natural death. While some may have a particular calling to focus on the unborn, none support the killing of those who are already born.

Not suggesting that one would want to kill a person who has been born.

What am I noting is that it’s very interesting how people will throw weight behind a politician who says they are “pro-life”, which really means anti-abortion, because a lot of the children who are not aborted are born into situations of poverty and despair. Poverty and despair not alleviated when the same politician cuts public assistance for them.

Or how about the “pro-family” politician who speaks out against gay marriage, but also cuts welfare making it impossible for a mother to raise her children at home, instead having to take a bus to work a minimum wage job.

When are people going to see that politicians use these issues to maintain their own power…not because of faithfulness to a particular cause.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

GloriaPatri4:

A little off the subject:

Does anyone know if Bishop O’Malley took a stand to stop Catholic Charities from allowing homosexual couples to adopt children?

catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?channel_id=1&article_id=3545

Archbishop O’Malley has not done or said anything publically. If he had taken a stand to stop them, I’m pretty sure it would have went public. As far as talking with Catholic Charities privately, I don’t know. I hope that he is dialoguing with them to try to figure out a resolution to this issue. The problem is that Catholic Charities does not seem inclined to listen to anything the bishop of our diocese says. Resolving this issue may come down to nothing less than replacing the CC’s entire board.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

ElizabethAnne:

Archbishop O’Malley has not done or said anything publically. If he had taken a stand to stop them, I’m pretty sure it would have went public. As far as talking with Catholic Charities privately, I don’t know. I hope that he is dialoguing with them to try to figure out a resolution to this issue. The problem is that Catholic Charities does not seem inclined to listen to anything the bishop of our diocese says. Resolving this issue may come down to nothing less than replacing the CC’s entire board.

Thank you for the info. So is Catholic Charities still placing children with same sex couples?

 

[ElizabethAnne]

GloriaPatri4:

Thank you for the info. So is Catholic Charities still placing children with same sex couples?

I have not heard anything to the contrary. From what I understand, they have only placed a few children with same-sex couples over a span of several years. I’m not saying this to excuse their behavior, but they may not be actively placing children with same-sex couples at this particular time. But I haven’t heard anything about a policy change for them, so I would imagine that it will continue to happen in the future.

I could be wrong, so if anybody knows something different, please let me know.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

frommi:

Not suggesting that one would want to kill a person who has been born.

What am I noting is that it’s very interesting how people will throw weight behind a politician who says they are “pro-life”, which really means anti-abortion, because a lot of the children who are not aborted are born into situations of poverty and despair. Poverty and despair not alleviated when the same politician cuts public assistance for them.

Or how about the “pro-family” politician who speaks out against gay marriage, but also cuts welfare making it impossible for a mother to raise her children at home, instead having to take a bus to work a minimum wage job.

When are people going to see that politicians use these issues to maintain their own power…not because of faithfulness to a particular cause.

Unfortunately, there are no perfect political candidates and very few that I can whole-heartedly support as a Catholic voter.

I think you are buying into some very narrow stereotypes. All politicians fit into two categories for you: 1. They are anti-abortion and cut benefits for the poor or 2. They help the poor and support killing the unborn. I just don’t think it’s that simple.

The notion that children who are aborted would otherwise live in poverty is another stereotype. Some have predicted that contraceptives and abortions would eliminate abused/unwanted/impoverished children. Has that happened? No. Yet so many abortions occur. There must be other reasons that people abort their children. Not to mention the fact that you seem to be arguing that children would be better off dead than poor. I strongly disagree with that.

There are a variety of issues that must be weighed before a voting decision can be made. The issue of abortion is very heavy. It involves the killing of innocent life. Millions of lives! It can really tip the scales. If a politician is “just saying that” to get himself elected, it will become apparent from his actions/votes in office and voting for him can be reevaluated at the next election.

 

[seabird3579]

frommi:

I think there is a bigger problem with people who would minimize the teaching authority of the local ordinary, and substitute that with a desire to be ‘loyal to the Pope’. You can’t be loyal to the Pope by being disloyal to his brother bishops.

A bishop’s teaching authority comes from the Magisterium in Rome. If a bishop teaches something contrary to the Magisterium, it could very well be heresy. In that case, you not only have the right to reject his teachings in favor or Rome’s, *you have a duty * to do it!

 

[Penny_Plain]

ElizabethAnne:

Unfortunately, there are no perfect political candidates and very few that I can whole-heartedly support as a Catholic voter.

That’s very close to what I believe, as well.

We go further. There are very few political organizations I can whole-heartedly support as a Catholic. People and situations are complex, and nothing’s more complex than the question of good and evil.

Bringing this back to the mayor, it sounds like (assuming what’s said about him is true) that he’s a complex man. We can’t support him whole-heartedly as a Catholic politician because he does some things we just can’t support. However, he also does other things that we support.

The question is what to do about it.

One answer is to support only those politicians with whom we can whole-heartedly agree and condemn those with whom we have any significant disagreement.

That seems pure, but it doesn’t seem helpful.

Another answer (and the one I choose, obviously) is that we praise the good in people whenever we find it. The Mayor works tirelessly on behalf of the poor? That’s a good thing. We’re supposed to do that.

The Mayor has done something good? We pat him on the head and say, “Good job, Mayor. We think you’re living this aspect of your Catholic faith to the fullest, and you’re a good example to others in this aspect. Now can we work on …?”

The alternative is to say, “Mayor, you do some things that are very bad. Because of that, we refuse to praise you for any good acts that you do.” Our standards are very high, and (as somebody pointed out) few, if any, politicians are going to meet them. If they realize they can’t, they’re going to stop listening to us and stop trying to please us by doing any good at all.

We will be marginalized and ignored as a bunch of religious nuts who are impossible to please. How does that help anyone? How does it feed the hungry or give drink to the thirsty? How does it bring clothing to the naked or warmth to the cold or justice to anyone?

We have to take our wins where we find them. It sounds like Boston could have a much better mayor. But it also could have a much worse mayor, and we would be wise to be mindful of that. “Gentle as doves and subtle as serpents,” and all that.