We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it. - Cardinal Dolan

[saraih]

However, the churches are under contract with the government to provide services. The funds therefore are payment for services rendered. The government is trying to change the scope of the contract, and the churches are refusing to accept the expanded scope. The churches are non-profit organizations and are getting a black eye for refusing. Who is the real bad guy here?

Nobody is the bad guy. The two sectors used to have compatible views and now they don’t, the church is not entitled to funding from anyone except people that follow the church and the government has no right to make a church provide services it can’t feasibly provide.

The government is not Catholic. The two can’t interact in such close quarters without one of the two making compromises it shouldn’t have to. So that relationship with the adoption agencies came to a natural end. Maybe the entire interdependent system should be looked at critically by both sides. Society progresses and the church remains the same, maybe we can’t interact the way we used to and need to find other ways to thrive in society.

I do take the point about the money not being available because of existing taxes, and we don’t tithe as such, but surely we don’t need 2.9 billion dollar businesses to be charitable and active either.

 

[tjt3]

It was my understanding that nuns (I think you probably mean Sisters) were never really supposed to be working in middle class area hospitals and schools. Some new religious are forming with that type of service in mind but getting back to their roots (as instructed!) meant the withdrawal of this function for most sisters anyway. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘the 70s’ or ‘feminism’. Catholic schools and hospitals were never supposed to be full of religious, for the most part.

Tell that to St. John Neumann and St. Camillus and many other Saints that started orders that still exist today of teaching Brothers and hospital Brothers, many in the U.S… Pax

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

This is an attempt to shift the blame from the government to private donors. When a large chunk of change is removed from their available funds, of course it’s not going to be made up any time soon.

The government never would have had to support them in the first place if Catholics were willing to financially support their own social institutions. Unfortunately, that was not the case and not enough people reached into their pockets when Catholic Charities needed them most. Catholic Charities was permitted to stand on their own and its closures are a reflection of a profound lack of charitable giving not of anything the government did. Its just a sad reality.

 

[JimG]

The government never would have had to support them in the first place if Catholics were willing to financially support their own social institutions. Unfortunately, that was not the case and not enough people reached into their pockets when Catholic Charities needed them most. Catholic Charities was permitted to stand on their own and its closures are a reflection of a profound lack of charitable giving not of anything the government did. Its just a sad reality.

Catholic charitable organizations in several cities have been forced to close not for lack of funding, but because of government force. Catholic adoption agencies were legally forced to provide adoptions to homosexual couples or shut down. Funding had nothing to do with it. Catholic agencies refused to give up their religion, so they closed. Now HHS is again attempting to force Catholic agencies to give up their religion. Once again, funding has nothing to do with it. It’s this administration’s war on the Catholic Church.

 

[Nec5]

We’ll have to wait and see if the bishops repeatedly speak out and act as stalwart shepherds.

 

[sedonaman]

The government never would have had to support them in the first place if Catholics were willing to financially support their own social institutions. Unfortunately, that was not the case and not enough people reached into their pockets when Catholic Charities needed them most. Catholic Charities was permitted to stand on their own and its closures are a reflection of a profound lack of charitable giving not of anything the government did. Its just a sad reality.

The problem with this is that when it comes to adoption, the government has a legal role to play. Like I said, the government was not giving them a gift. It was paying for services rendered.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Catholic charitable organizations in several cities have been forced to close not for lack of funding, but because of government force. Catholic adoption agencies were legally forced to provide adoptions to homosexual couples or shut down. Funding had nothing to do with it. Catholic agencies refused to give up their religion, so they closed. Now HHS is again attempting to force Catholic agencies to give up their religion. Once again, funding has nothing to do with it. It’s this administration’s war on the Catholic Church.

That simply isn’t true. All the States did was terminate their funding of Catholic Charties.

 

[JimG]

That simply isn’t true. All the States did was terminate their funding of Catholic Charties.

When Catholic Charities of Boston announced it was getting out of the adoption business, it was because it could no longer legally offer adoption services to heterosexual couples without also offering them to homosexual couples.

In Massachusetts, adoption agencies must be licensed by the state. And the agency must agree to obey the laws of the state barring discrimination—including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When gay marriage became legal in the state, adoptions had to be offered to homosexual couples on an equal basis.

“It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

The result was much the same as the HHS mandate. Catholic Charities had to either reject Catholic teaching and violate Catholic principles, or get out of business. It had to get out of business, to the great detriment of families and children.

Source: downloads.frc.org/EF/EF07I18.pdf

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

When Catholic Charities of Boston announced it was getting out of the adoption business, it was because it could no longer legally offer adoption services to heterosexual couples without also offering them to homosexual couples.

In Massachusetts, adoption agencies must be licensed by the state. And the agency must agree to obey the laws of the state barring discrimination—including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When gay marriage became legal in the state, adoptions had to be offered to homosexual couples on an equal basis.

“It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

The result was much the same as the HHS mandate. Catholic Charities had to either reject Catholic teaching and violate Catholic principles, or get out of business. It had to get out of business, to the great detriment of families and children.

Source: downloads.frc.org/EF/EF07I18.pdf

Incorrect. The prohibition on rejecting qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation has been law in Massachusetts since 1989 and Catholic Charities was never threatened with non-renewal of their adoption license. Catholic Charities was not forced to close because of a refusal to place children with same-sex couples; they voluntarily closed because the State cut off their funding and they couldn’t make up the shortfall with private donations.

 

[JimG]

Incorrect. The prohibition on rejecting qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation has been law in Massachusetts since 1989 and Catholic Charities was never threatened with non-renewal of their adoption license. Catholic Charities was not forced to close because of a refusal to place children with same-sex couples; they voluntarily closed because the State cut off their funding and they couldn’t make up the shortfall with private donations.

In Boston Catholic Charities got $1 million from the state, out of a budget of $38 million.

Less than 3% of its budget. It wasn’t about the money. It was about being forced to provide morally unacceptable services. It can’t get into the adoption business without ceasing to be Catholic. It was about loss of free exercise of religion.

“Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life that society views with skepticism or distaste.

A second reason might be that Catholic Charities received money from DSS (about $1 million out of a budget of $38 million) when it provided special-needs adoptions. But even if Catholic Charities gave up the money it got from DSS, it still wouldn’t be able to provide adoption services because it also needed a license from the Department of Early Education and Care.

Second, it is likely that the real reason Catholic Charities contracted with DSS was not to get an additional 3 percent in its budget, but so that it could help with the special-needs adoptions that comprised 80 percent of its caseload. It was not about the money; it was about the Gospel.”

thecatholicassociation.org/state_putting_church_out_of_adoption_business.html

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Second, it is likely that the real reason Catholic Charities contracted with DSS was not to get an additional 3 percent in its budget, but so that it could help with the special-needs adoptions that comprised 80 percent of its caseload. It was not about the money; it was about the Gospel.”[/INDENT]

No one ever threatened to rescind their license. The local bishop wanted to have his cake and eat it to, e.g., continue receiving State and Federal funding while violating the law by discriminating against qualified adoptive parents on the basis of sexual orientation. The only consequence was that its funding was pulled. It should also be noted that this law has been around since 1989 and the board voted unanimously to comply.

 

[JimG]

Hard to believe that they would close down for the lack of 2% of their funding. Perhaps the Vatican statement in 2003 had something to do with it.

“A 2003 Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document says it would be “gravely immoral” to let same-sex couples adopt children.
“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development,” said the document.”

The fact remains that if the diocese wished to do adoptions, then or now, it would be required by the state to renounce its religion. Or could they refuse homosexual adoptions and remain in business?

That’s government interference in the free practice of religion. Such laws with no waiver for religious institutions, ought to be repealed. They are bad for society, bad for children, bad for families, and an attack on religion.

nhmarriage.org/catholic-charities-boston-forced-end-adoption-services

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That’s government interference in the free practice of religion.

No religious institution should complain about government interference while its on the public dole.

Such laws with no waiver for religious institutions, ought to be repealed. They are bad for society, bad for children, bad for families, and an attack on religion.

Scientific study disagrees.

 

[JimG]

No religious institution should complain about government interference while its on the public dole.

Scientific study disagrees.

All right, let’s remove all public funding and public contracts from every sort of Catholic charitable organization. Laws in many states would still prevent such organizations from carrying out their work on their own dime. How many Catholic adoption agencies have had to close precisely because of this issue.

Catholic adoption agencies cannot place children into immoral situations. They should not violate their own religious principles. If they do so, they cease to be Catholic. They do harm to children and society.

As for the benefit of homosexual adoptions, I’ll stick with the pope on this one.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How many Catholic adoption agencies have had to close precisely because of this issue.

Zero because none were forced by the State to close.

 

[JimG]

This search link appears to suggest otherwise, but I’m not going to research all of them now.

 

[sedonaman]

No religious institution should complain about government interference while its on the public dole.

They were no more “on the dole” than any other contractor providing a service to the government. Are you on your employer’s dole because he gives you a gift every “payday”?

Scientific study disagrees.

What scientific studies?

 

[buffalo]

I fear that closing religiously affiliated services, Catholic ones specifically, is the administration’s end game. The government will just replace them with public services – bloated, government-run bureaucracies that fall in lockstep with whatever crazy mandates the government imagines. It’s sad, but given the anti-religious tone this country has taken in the last few years, I see people accepting less/worse services as long as they aren’t run by “those crazy religous fanatics.”

Yup - that would be the communist way.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

They were no more “on the dole” than any other contractor providing a service to the government. Are you on your employer’s dole because he gives you a gift every “payday”?

I’m not paid with taxpayer dollars.

This search link appears to suggest otherwise, but I’m not going to research all of them now.

Take a closer look at who forced them close. It wasn’t the State.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not paid with taxpayer dollars.

Take a closer look at who forced them close. It wasn’t the State.

I noticed other posters provided links to back up their assertions that it wasn’t about state funding. You provided none. From this CAF members perspective, you completely failed in making a compelling argument due to lack of evidence.