Vatican Cardinal Burke: ‘We’re well on the way’ to Christian persecution in the U.S

[Dale_M]

You are saying that you know that they dropped the case because they didn’t think that they would win? How do you know that?

Fair enough. The official statement from the bishops is that they lacked the money to continue providing services in the absence of government funding.
thomasmoresociety.org/docs/Statement-re-end-of-appeals-Springfield-11-14-2011.pdf

Earlier this year, a judge ruled against Catholic Charities. An appeal was planned, but the law organization representing Catholic Charities described the situation as: “Time was our enemy in this, unfortunately.”

 

[Santi2]

If Catholic adoption agencies want to fund themselves privately, they are free to do so and thus be free of the objectionable requirements. But they need to pay for services on their own dime, and not be leaning on the government.

That Catholic Charities in several diocese have shut down their adoption services rather than rely on private donations is very sad. But they aren’t being forced to make that decision.

Even if Catholic adoption services were to rely on private donations, wouldn’t they be found in breach of discrimination laws all the same? That is the current position over here with Catholic Care in the Diocese of Leeds.

 

[Dale_M]

Even if Catholic adoption services were to rely on private donations, wouldn’t they be found in breach of discrimination laws all the same? That is the current position over here with Catholic Care in the Diocese of Leeds.

I am very sorry to read that. I think that is very wrong and definitely intrudes on religious freedom.

I don’t know the laws in all of the states of the US, but in the case of Illinois and Massachusetts, the controversy involved government contracts to provide adoption and foster care services on behalf of the state. Private adoption agencies, those which do not have government contracts, were not affected by the anti-discrimination laws.

And I remember that in Mississippi, Bethany Family Services used to refuse Catholic families to adopt from them. They could legally discriminate against Catholics because they were privately funded. That changed about five years ago, not because of the government, but because their national organization pressured them to.

 

[JimG]

Fair enough. The official statement from the bishops is that they lacked the money to continue providing services in the absence of government funding.
thomasmoresociety.org/docs/Statement-re-end-of-appeals-Springfield-11-14-2011.pdf

Earlier this year, a judge ruled against Catholic Charities. An appeal was planned, but the law organization representing Catholic Charities described the situation as: “Time was our enemy in this, unfortunately.”

From the Springfield Ill. Diocese link that you provided:

“The Catholic Church has successfully partnered with the State for half a century in providing foster care and adoption services. While the State has forced the Catholic Church out of state-supported foster care and adoption services, the losers will be the children, foster care families and adoptive parents who will no longer have the option of Catholic, faith-based services.”
The losers indeed are children who will no longer have the benefit of Catholic foster care and adoption placement and who will now be at risk of placement with active homosexuals. The State has decided to foster child abuse. This is very sad.

 

[Cojuanco]

I highly respect the good Cardinal, but I’ll have to disagree on this one. Could the government be less hostile to the Church? Surely. But we are very, very far from being persecuted, at least by the hand of the State. While you may disagree whether the Catholic Charities adoption cases are or aren’t bad policy (I think the latter) the truth is, the Catholic Church has no inherent right to the State’s money. It’s at the State’s discretion, and they have the right to withdraw aid as it wishes, though I’d wager they’re all a bunch of idiots for doing so.

As for the rumor of the Muslim prayer-rooms at secular schools, I’d like to see evidence for that, and what nature it was.

 

[po18guy]

I highly respect the good Cardinal, but I’ll have to disagree on this one. Could the government be less hostile to the Church? Surely. But we are very, very far from being persecuted, at least by the hand of the State. While you may disagree whether the Catholic Charities adoption cases are or aren’t bad policy (I think the latter) the truth is, the Catholic Church has no inherent right to the State’s money. It’s at the State’s discretion, and they have the right to withdraw aid as it wishes, though I’d wager they’re all a bunch of idiots for doing so.

As for the rumor of the Muslim prayer-rooms at secular schools, I’d like to see evidence for that, and what nature it was.

Government action has moved on from withdrawing aid, to a federal mandate that Catholic entities will now provide insurance that pays for employees’ abortions and contraception. Do you notice the sea change here? It is one thing to say. “We’re not going to fund you anymore” and quite another to say, “We command you to do this, if you desire to exist as you are”. The Church is forced to violate her own conscience, or not have employee insurance. This is not minor. It is coercion.

Have you seen the Japanese videos of the tsunami? It starts off as a faint rumbling, with some mist in the distance. Watch it to the end, and you see that all but the most high ground is swallowed up. This is how events naturally unfold. Human events are no different. Every violent ending was preceded by indicators of an impending problem.

We are well past the first signs of trouble since, as it stands, conscience has been violated. Conscience drives ideas and behavior. Our freedom of conscience now rests upon the decision of a teetering court, which, if you note, now contains two additional radical abortion supporters.

 

[irishpatrick]

I am not sure how any person can rationally aruge that this nation has not become more cold to Christianity.

 

[Santi2]

I am very sorry to read that. I think that is very wrong and definitely intrudes on religious freedom.

I don’t know the laws in all of the states of the US, but in the case of Illinois and Massachusetts, the controversy involved government contracts to provide adoption and foster care services on behalf of the state. Private adoption agencies, those which do not have government contracts, were not affected by the anti-discrimination laws.

And I remember that in Mississippi, Bethany Family Services used to refuse Catholic families to adopt from them. They could legally discriminate against Catholics because they were privately funded. That changed about five years ago, not because of the government, but because their national organization pressured them to.

Catholic Care is actually the only Catholic charity dealing with adoption services now. The rest have either closed or disassociated as a Catholic charity in order to operate. If Catholic Care loses its case, which is on its next round of appeal, then there’ll be none left.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Government action has moved on from withdrawing aid, to a federal mandate that Catholic entities will now provide insurance that pays for employees’ abortions and contraception. Do you notice the sea change here? It is one thing to say. “We’re not going to fund you anymore” and quite another to say, “We command you to do this, if you desire to exist as you are”. The Church is forced to violate her own conscience, or not have employee insurance. This is not minor. It is coercion.

Have you seen the Japanese videos of the tsunami? It starts off as a faint rumbling, with some mist in the distance. Watch it to the end, and you see that all but the most high ground is swallowed up. This is how events naturally unfold. Human events are no different. Every violent ending was preceded by indicators of an impending problem.

We are well past the first signs of trouble since, as it stands, conscience has been violated. Conscience drives ideas and behavior. Our freedom of conscience now rests upon the decision of a teetering court, which, if you note, now contains two additional radical abortion supporters.

Very well put.

This morning NPR had an article on the Archdiocese of Washington DC requesting an exemption from their health insurance policies providing for prescription contraceptives for their employees. They interviewed a nonCatholic employee who said she was told to check her insurance policy for contraceptive coverage by a fellow employee. It was treated as though a right was denied.

The ACLU stated that the Catholic Church was imposing their morals on unwilling people.

Unbelievable.

The way HHS has defined a religious institution is so narrow that Catholics would have to abandon their mission to serve all peoples regardless of religious affiliation.

The Church built schools and hospitals, started charities, without government help. And now Catholics are being told they are intolerant and bigoted.

Unbelievable.

 

[He_Man]

If a Catholic adoption agency wants to be a “purchase of services” provider for the government, then it needs to follow the guidelines of government. Who takes the king’s coin is the king’s man.

Some people disagree:

npr.org/2011/07/05/137622143/illinois-catholic-agencies-at-odds-over-gay-adoptions

However, I don’t think that argument will hold up in the courts, and is the reason why the Catholic Charities challenge to the new requirement was dropped.

If Catholic adoption agencies want to fund themselves privately, they are free to do so and thus be free of the objectionable requirements. But they need to pay for services on their own dime, and not be leaning on the government.

That Catholic Charities in several diocese have shut down their adoption services rather than rely on private donations is very sad. But they aren’t being forced to make that decision.

So it was never an issue before, and over the years, the noose has tightened in an attempt to subdue the religious beliefs of the agencies in question.

You basically admit this, and thus admit the stifling of their religious beliefs is occurring. You just couch it as “legal” because they take government money. Which is fine, but at least you’ve admitted the silencing of religious beliefs IS occurring. You just happen to defend it.

 

[Birdpreacher]

IMO history tells us that the people Christians have to worry about the most…are other Christians.

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jan-hus-278x300.jpg

http://70.40.202.97/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/billboard2small.jpg

http://70.40.202.97/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/billboard1small1.jpg

 

[irishpatrick]

I highly respect the good Cardinal, but I’ll have to disagree on this one. Could the government be less hostile to the Church? Surely. But we are very, very far from being persecuted, at least by the hand of the State. While you may disagree whether the Catholic Charities adoption cases are or aren’t bad policy (I think the latter) the truth is, the Catholic Church has no inherent right to the State’s money. It’s at the State’s discretion, and they have the right to withdraw aid as it wishes, though I’d wager they’re all a bunch of idiots for doing so.

As for the rumor of the Muslim prayer-rooms at secular schools, I’d like to see evidence for that, and what nature it was.

Would you feel the same way if state laws prevented the Church from providing adoptions even if Catholic Charities relied solely on private money?

 

[He_Man]

IMO history tells us that the people Christians have to worry about the most…are other Christians.

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jan-hus-278x300.jpg

http://70.40.202.97/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/billboard2small.jpg

http://70.40.202.97/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/billboard1small1.jpg

Satan comes in all forms. Other Christians are merely one of those. Radical Islam and the sexually immoral are others.

 

[Dale_M]

So it was never an issue before, the noose has tightened in an attempt to subdue the religious beliefs of the agencies in question.

In years and decades past, unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians was not only tolerated, but considered normal. The ending of such discrimination has only happened during the past 30 years or so, and is not an attempt to subdue religious beliefs. Indeed, private adoption agencies are free to hold to their religious beliefs and refuse to adopt to gays and lesbians… they just can not fund this discrimination on the public dime. Government services are for the use of all people.

You basically admit this, and thus admit the stifling of their religious beliefs is occurring.

No, I said nothing remotely like that. And I do not appreciate the odd spin you are giving to my words.

 

[jam070406]

In years and decades past, unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians was not only tolerated, but considered normal. The ending of such discrimination has only happened during the past 30 years or so, and is not an attempt to subdue religious beliefs. Indeed, private adoption agencies are free to hold to their religious beliefs and refuse to adopt to gays and lesbians… they just can not fund this discrimination on the public dime. Government services are for the use of all people.

No, I said nothing remotely like that. And I do not appreciate the odd spin you are giving to my words.

Do you believe that children adopted by practicing homosexuals is child abuse, like stated in post #63?
Is this unjust discrimination to you?
Or do your words that this not to subdue religious belief ring hollow?

 

[Dale_M]

Do you believe that children adopted by practicing homosexuals is child abuse, like stated in post #63?

No, I do not. However, the person who expressed that view is entitled to his opinion.

Or do your words that this not to subdue religious belief ring hollow?

I do not see how my words ring hollow. If an adoption agency has a religious agenda, and it results in unjust discrimination against an entire class of persons, then that agenda should not be funded by the government. Government programs exist to serve all the public. If an adoption agency with a religious agenda is privately funded, then it is free to follow its beliefs.

 

[jam070406]

No, I do not. However, the person who expressed that view is entitled to his opinion.

I do not see how my words ring hollow. If an adoption agency has a religious agenda, and it results in unjust discrimination against an entire class of persons, then that agenda should not be funded by the government. Government programs exist to serve all the public. If an adoption agency with a religious agenda is privately funded, then it is free to follow its beliefs.

I notice you ignored my second question. But that’s ok, you answered it in your second response. You believe Catholic Teaching is unjust discrimination. Therefore you believe religious beliefs should be subdued.

 

[Dale_M]

You believe Catholic Teaching is unjust discrimination.

No, I did not say that. And I would appreciate very much if you did not put words in my mouth.

A government program which excludes gays and lesbians from adoption is unjust discrimination. That program exists to serve the entire public. To the extent that an agency is acting as a government provider of adoption services, it needs to serve the entire public.

However, an adoption agency which funds itself is free to exclude anyone they would like, including on the basis of religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

 

[jam070406]

No, I did not say that. And I would appreciate very much if you did not put words in my mouth.

Well, you didn’t answer the question so I could only assume that you believe the Church’s opposition to homosexual adoption is unjust discrimination. Because you don’t believe it’s a unhealthy situation for children to be brought into, per your words.

A government program which excludes gays and lesbians from adoption is unjust discrimination.

In your opinion. Some believe it is an unhealthy situation for children to be placed in and hence, the government would do a greater good protecting children by avoiding allowing them to be put in an unhealthy situation.

That program exists to serve the entire public.

It should serve the greater good of children and society.

To the extent that an agency is acting as a government provider of adoption services, it needs to serve the entire public.

It needs to put first the health and well being of the children being adopted.

However, an adoption agency which funds itself is free to exclude anyone they would like, including on the basis of religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

All agencies would do well to follow this lead in regards to children being placed in the unhealthy situation of a homosexual household.

 

[JM3]

Your view of “history” is severely warped if you think there is any correlation between America and the countries you mentioned.

It seems some do learn from history.

mercatornet.com/articles/view/how_the_nazis_engineered_a_paedophile_priests_scare/

“There are cases of sexual abuse that come to light every day against a large number of members of the Catholic clergy"…An editorial from a great secular newspaper in 2010? No: It’s a speech of May 28, 1937, by Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich.

mercatornet.com/articles/view/mora

Moral panic flares again

Why are old and very often well-known cases being exhumed in 2010 on a daily basis, always attacking the Pope? This is paradoxical if one considers the great severity of then Cardinal Ratzinger and of Benedict XVI on this very theme. The moral entrepreneurs who organise the panic have an agenda which is increasingly clear and which is not essentially the protection of children. This is a time when political, juridical and even electoral decisions in Europe and elsewhere are being made about the abortion pill RU-486, euthanasia, the recognition of same sex unions. Only the voice of the Pope and the Church is being raised to defend life and the family. The reading of certain articles in the media shows that very powerful lobby groups are seeking to silence this voice with the worst possible defamation – and unfortunately an easy one to make – that of favouring or tolerating paedophilia.