The Homeless vs. Gay Marriage

[PaulinVA]

This is not what Scripture says, not only with the Sheep and Goats message. But St Paul tells us directly that we should lavish our enemy with love.

No where in the Gospels does it put limits on our charity, so why are we.

Well, actually, scripture deals with our charity towards others, not charity toward others using third party contractors, so any reference in scripture doesn’t apply in this situation.

The contractors are the issue here, not the charity.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Well, actually, scripture deals with our charity towards others, not charity toward others using third party contractors, so any reference in scripture doesn’t apply in this situation.

The contractors are the issue here, not the charity.

That is just semantics. The Bible is not a legal document. If there is a slight difference in a situation than what would normally be referenced in the Bible, we obviously can’t use the Bible as reference because it doesn’t match the situation exactly.

By your logic, because it’s a third party contractor, the Diocese shouldn’t be referencing scripture to justify removing their funding. Were they being charitable to the contractor or the homeless? The homeless. Were they funding the contractor’s well-being or the homeless’? The homeless aren’t agitating to remove a referendum whose legitimacy has been challenged since before it went on the ballot in 2009. The third party contractor is. So scripture, because it doesn’t mention third party contractors, can’t be used to support removing the funding.

Your logic supports funding the group you don’t want funded.

 

[PaulinVA]

By your logic, because it’s a third party contractor, the Diocese shouldn’t be referencing scripture to justify removing their funding. Were they being charitable to the contractor or the homeless? The homeless. Were they funding the contractor’s well-being or the homeless’? The homeless aren’t agitating to remove a referendum whose legitimacy has been challenged since before it went on the ballot in 2009. The third party contractor is. So scripture, because it doesn’t mention third party contractors, can’t be used to support removing the funding.

Your logic supports funding the group you don’t want funded.

The issue is about removing funding from a contractor because the contractor, while they are doing good works, are also campaigning for for political causes against Church teaching.

My point was that the Church was not removing funding from the homeless. They were removing funding from a contractor they disagreed with (who was using the money to help the homeless). The Church was still going to use the money to help the homeless.

The Church is still following the scriptural admonition to help the homeless. They are just changing who they are doing it with.

 

[Jermosh]

The issue is about removing funding from a contractor because the contractor, while they are doing good works, are also campaigning for for political causes against Church teaching.

My point was that the Church was not removing funding from the homeless. They were removing funding from a contractor they disagreed with (who was using the money to help the homeless). The Church was still going to use the money to help the homeless.

The Church is still following the scriptural admonition to help the homeless. They are just changing who they are doing it with.

As again you are putting limits on charity, where does it state this in the Gospels? Are we or are we not supposed to love everyone equaly or not.

 

[PaulinVA]

As again you are putting limits on charity, where does it state this in the Gospels? Are we or are we not supposed to love everyone equaly or not.

What limits? Where are the limits?

I give you $1000 to buy groceries to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches every weekday in a month to bring down to the local homeless shelter.

It works well for several months, until I find out that you are also telling the homeless people how bad the Catholic Church is and generally spouting anti Catholic rhetoric.

So, I stop giving you $1000 a month. Instead, I give it to Tom one street over who will either remain silent or take a pro-Catholic stand when handing out the sandwiches.

The poor are still being fed. You aren’t doing it, but it’s being done.

 

[Jermosh]

What limits? Where are the limits?

I give you $1000 to buy groceries to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches every weekday in a month to bring down to the local homeless shelter.

It works well for several months, until I find out that you are also telling the homeless people how bad the Catholic Church is and generally spouting anti Catholic rhetoric.

So, I stop giving you $1000 a month. Instead, I give it to Tom one street over who will either remain silent or take a pro-Catholic stand when handing out the sandwiches.

The poor are still being fed. You aren’t doing it, but it’s being done.

No, we are to continue to give the person money regardless of what they say. This is how the Spirit changes the hearts of man, by produciing unlimited love, compassion, and charity. This is exactly what Christ aludes to in the Goats and Sheep, St Paul speaks of it in many places.

 

[PaulinVA]

No, we are to continue to give the person money regardless of what they say. This is how the Spirit changes the hearts of man, by produciing unlimited love, compassion, and charity. This is exactly what Christ aludes to in the Goats and Sheep, St Paul speaks of it in many places.

Paying for the homeless to eat and hear anti-Catholic messages is nowhere mandated in the Gospel. Nowhere.

How do you change someones heart when you are paying for them to hear a message contrary to the Gospel? That defies logic. Oh, wait, you really could change their hearts - to move further away from the Gospel. Probably not the intended result, huh?

 

[hellopeople]

Paying for the homeless to eat and hear anti-Catholic messages is nowhere mandated in the Gospel. Nowhere.

How do you change someones heart when you are paying for them to hear a message contrary to the Gospel? That defies logic. Oh, wait, you really could change their hearts - to move further away from the Gospel. Probably not the intended result, huh?

Do you really think that this homeless shelter is giving food out and telling everyone “gay marriage is the right thing to do?”

 

[Corki]

When the church does things like this (and the other things you mentioned) that seem to be completely contrary to Jesus’ teachings, something is wrong. Do you think Jesus would not help the poor because they were sinners? It is like these church officials have forgotten the gospels.

No this is completelty congruent with Jesus’ teachings. The money did not evaporate. The funds will still be used to help the poor and homeless. The money will just not be routed through *this particular *agency to fund *this particular *shelter. The grant money will now go to other programs and still be used to help the poor.

Note it isn’t the shelter that has lost funding, it is the Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program. The program used at least some of its funds, not to help the homeless, but to campaign for gay marriage. It is the *program *that violated its charge, not the Church or the CCHD (in this instance). The CCHD has every right to expect that the organizations it supports use the money in a manner consistent with the goals of the CCHD and the Church. The Preble Street program wanted to go in a different direction, away from helping the homeless and toward “gay” rights advocacy. The program did not “lose” funding, it chose to forgo funding from the CCHD in order to support its new mission.

 

[PaulinVA]

Do you really think that this homeless shelter is giving food out and telling everyone “gay marriage is the right thing to do?”

Of course they are!

They might not be doing it in the same instant in time, but they are doing both.

 

[Trv]

I have read through this thread a couple of time and I have failed to see anyone mention the reason why this homeless shelter supports gay marriage:

“He said Preble Street decided to join the coalition that opposed Question 1 because issues of sexual orientation are the single greatest cause of homelessness among youths.” - pressherald.com/news/diocese-penalizes-homeless-aid-group_2010-03-23.html

While I cannot confirm the validity of this statement, I would assume sexual orientation is among one of the biggest causes of youth homelessness. If this is true, I find it very difficult to blame the homeless shelter for becoming involved in the issue.

 

[Lycorth]

You may want to give it another shot. Apparently you missed some of it.

Here are some good starting points:

Yes, I’ve read all of those. Nowhere does it say to ignore when sin is being promoted, or to work with those who promote grave evil.

If this were solely a case of denying charity to people who happen to be afflicted by homosexuality, then I could understand objecting. No one is claiming that we should deny charity to those who are afflicted by homosexuality but that there is a problem when sodomy is tolerated and encouraged via the “gay marriage” agenda.

I think that is the point that is being missed.

 

[Corki]

I have read through this thread a couple of time and I have failed to see anyone mention the reason why this homeless shelter supports gay marriage:

“He said Preble Street decided to join the coalition that opposed Question 1 because issues of sexual orientation are the single greatest cause of homelessness among youths.” - pressherald.com/news/diocese-penalizes-homeless-aid-group_2010-03-23.html

While I cannot confirm the validity of this statement, I would assume sexual orientation is among one of the biggest causes of youth homelessness. If this is true, I find it very difficult to blame the homeless shelter for becoming involved in the issue.

Ok, how exactly does legal “gay” marriage keep youths with sexual orientation issues off the streets?

 

[hellopeople]

Ok, how exactly does legal “gay” marriage keep youths with sexual orientation issues off the streets?

The only reasoning I can see behind it is that gay kids get kicked out of their house for being gay, thus becoming homeless. If gay marriage was legalized, people would likely become, over time, more accepting of homosexuality, and these children would not be kicked out. That is a complete guess though.

 

[Podo2005]

I agree with this. And I think that Jesus would do the same. What is more important…helping homeless or not funding an organization that is helping the poor (a THEME of Jesus’ teachings.

I don’t know if I should post any more passages in the Bible because apparently Elizabeth is biblical scholar so I guess she holds the rights to doing so…but hopefully she is OK with it :

Matthew 25:41-46
41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me,** I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’**

44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I can see God reciting these words to the people responsible for the decision and them responding “But Lord, they supported GAY MARRIAGE!”

Don’t you all see the problem here? How are the most rigid followers of Catholicism so blind to compassion.

Also I just want to point out that Jesus said “I was sick and in prison”…as in the way you treat sinners is the way you treat Jesus.

I just can’t believe how caught up some of you are with “following” church teachings that you totally lose sight of Jesus’ message. Pathetic. Just like the pharisees.

How dare you accuse those who are faithful to the teachings of the Lord Himself of having no compassion! What you are trying to advocate is false compassion, a pathetic excuse given so that people can continue in their sins!

" If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me it would be better if a great milestone were hung around your neck & you were thrown into the sea" - Mark 9:42

It is not a question of not helping the homeless because the Church teaches that she has a preferential option for the poor, it is a question of whether it is moral to give money to those organizations who instead of actually helping those who really need it use that money to support sin (whether it be homosexual activity, abortion etc). As catholics we believe that is morally wrong.

Yours in Christ,
Zachary

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

I guess. To me, all I see are homeless people–among the most vulnerable a population that I can imagine, especially homeless teens (as per the article)–getting less love, less charity, less support, less faith because of this decision. Likewise, in DC (and here in Boston where I live), I just see more children left to languish in foster care or group homes because of the Church’s stance on adoption. It is the weakest among us who suffer. I understand the principles at stake. I cringe at the consequences.

Jesus said that we would be judged by how we treated the least of these. No matter what reasons we offer, in these instances, the least of these have been pushed aside.

But at the same time we cannot support flagrant evil such as gay “marriage”, etc. It’s bad not to help them but at the same time we cannot give one iota of support for evil.

 

[hellopeople]

How dare you accuse those who are faithful to the teachings of the Lord Himself of having no compassion! What you are trying to advocate is false compassion, a pathetic excuse given so that people can continue in their sins!

" If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me it would be better if a great milestone were hung around your neck & you were thrown into the sea" - Mark 9:42

It is not a question of not helping the homeless because the Church teaches that she has a preferential option for the poor, it is a question of whether it is moral to give money to those organizations who instead of actually helping those who really need it use that money to support sin (whether it be homosexual activity, abortion etc). As catholics we believe that is morally wrong.

Yours in Christ,
Zachary

How dare you go against what I am saying…see, I can do it too.

 

[Corki]

The only reasoning I can see behind it is that gay kids get kicked out of their house for being gay, thus becoming homeless. If gay marriage was legalized, people would likely become, over time, more accepting of homosexuality, and these children would not be kicked out. That is a complete guess though.

Which is another reason the Church should distance itself from this charity.

 

[Lycorth]

" If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me it would be better if a great milestone were hung around your neck & you were thrown into the sea" - Mark 9:42

Indeed. Like I said above, it’s not as if the Church is advocating denying charity to people who happen to be afflicted with homosexuality. The Church is taking a moral and consistent stance against organizations who promote dangerous and degenerate behavior. The poor can always get help somewhere else; it’s not like this is the only charity in town and there are plenty of moral charities ready and eager to provide help to people without approving of the homosexual agenda.

It’s the *homosexual agenda *that is being opposed here, not the poor or the act of charity itself. Here is a fine article about why homosexuality is dangerous; it dovetails perfectly with traditional Catholic opposition to this grave and dangerous sin: traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

 

[Corki]

I guess. To me, all I see are homeless people–among the most vulnerable a population that I can imagine, especially homeless teens (as per the article)–getting less love, less charity, less support, less faith because of this decision. Likewise, in DC (and here in Boston where I live), I just see more children left to languish in foster care or group homes because of the Church’s stance on adoption. It is the weakest among us who suffer. I understand the principles at stake. I cringe at the consequences.

Jesus said that we would be judged by how we treated the least of these. No matter what reasons we offer, in these instances, the least of these have been pushed aside.

It’s important to note that the children are not being hurt **because of **the Church’s position on adoption. The Church’s position hasn’t changed. It was a change in civil law that hurt the children by excluding the Catholic adoption services from the picture.

Same thing with the agency in the OP. Had it stuck to it’s original charter agreement, nothing would have happened. It is only when it changed its mission that a disconnect developed between its mission and its funding.