Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

[kepha31]

You mean, giving preferential government treatment to a religious organization that receive government funding to supplement their services?

That question? It presupposes a falsehood. Catholic Charities supplement government services by contract. You have it backwards. The fiscal relationship between govenment services and contracts with CHURCH FUNDED services is not as simple as you want it to be. Is it "giving preferential government treatment" to Protestant adoption/foster care agencies supplementing their services when Protestants take on such noble endeavors? Perhaps you just refuse to believe the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world, operating within the framework of perspective societies.

 

[kepha31]

1. What is marriage?
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).
These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.


3. Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?
The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).
In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

4. Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?
For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

5. Why is it so important to society that marriage be preserved as the exclusive union of a man and a woman?
Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.
Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.
The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.
When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?
It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).

Conclusion
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.

Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.
a partial statement by U.S. bishops

 

[tumbleweed41]

That question? It presupposes a falsehood. Catholic Charities supplement government services by contract. You have it backwards. The fiscal relationship between govenment services and contracts with CHURCH FUNDED services is not as simple as you want it to be. Is it "giving preferential government treatment" to Protestant adoption/foster care agencies supplementing their services when Protestants take on such noble endeavors? Perhaps you just refuse to believe the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world, operating within the framework of perspective societies.

Catholic Charities has accepted government funding to contract welfare services since 1979.
By contracting with the government and accepting funding, that funding is dependent on government rules.
Catholic Charities is free to provide charitable help under its own "rules" in the absence of government funding.
Children in need of adoption are considered "wards of the state", and as such, rules governing their adoption can be mandated by the state.

The same holds true for charities and adoption services run by Protestant organizations.

 

[tumbleweed41]

1. What is marriage?
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. .....http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0304.asp

Irrelevant to the discussion of government funded adoption.

The dogmatic stance of the Catholic church on homosexual marriage a perfect example of why Government and Church should always remain separate.

 

[Pegg]

Irrelevant to the discussion of government funded adoption.

The dogmatic stance of the Catholic church on homosexual marriage a perfect example of why Government and Church should always remain separate.

and that goes for the state keeping its nose out of the church's business and decisions too

 

[fenrisx]

I understand that you can't fathom our belief in tradtional values, or the concepts of right & wrong. We do not hate homosexuals - in fact the Catechism calls us to treat them with charity. But at the same time we cannot place children in dens of mortal sin.

But I know that people like you label everything they can't understansd as "hate". That is truly the sign of a vacant mind with no moral compass.



Correct. Thanks.

the sinking ship is what it is

 

[ninerbuff]

1. What is marriage?
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).
These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.


3. Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?
The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).
In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

4. Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?
For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

5. Why is it so important to society that marriage be preserved as the exclusive union of a man and a woman?
Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.
Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.
The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.
When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?
It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).

Conclusion
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.

Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.
a partial statement by U.S. bishops

That is marriage defined by the religion. If you look up the origin of marriage, it was just initially an agreement between the groom and father of the bride to be.
Also if religion was all that was needed for marriage, then licenses wouldn't be needed. As it is right now, you can have a "marriage ritual" in any church, or religion but it's not considered a marriage unless it's documented. That is also why the judicial system takes care of marriages and divorces.
You do also realize that married couples are no longer the majority. And the world is still moving along.

 

[tumbleweed41]

and that goes for the state keeping its nose out of the church's business and decisions too

I agree.
As long as said church accepts no government funds, does not contract with the government, and provides no services for wards of the state.

 

[Father Heathen]

1. What is marriage?
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).
These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.


3. Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?
The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).
In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

4. Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?
For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

5. Why is it so important to society that marriage be preserved as the exclusive union of a man and a woman?
Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.
Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.
The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.
When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?
It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).

Conclusion
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.

Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.
a partial statement by U.S. bishops

You do realize that the church's opinion is completely meaningless to non-catholics, right?

 

[Pegg]

I agree.
As long as said church accepts no government funds, does not contract with the government, and provides no services for wards of the state.

yep i agree totally

social welfare is the responsibility of the governments, not the church. And i think the governments have been riding on the backs of the church's charity for far too long.

Its time for the government to step up to the plate and do more for the community. Thats what tax money should be used for afterall.

 

[idav]

Its time for the government to step up to the plate and do more for the community. Thats what tax money should be used for afterall.

I thought tax money was to keep the rich richer.:sarcastic

 

[Pegg]

I thought tax money was to keep the rich richer.:sarcastic

some branches of politics think so

 

[tumbleweed41]

yep i agree totally

social welfare is the responsibility of the governments, not the church. And i think the governments have been riding on the backs of the church's charity for far too long.

Its time for the government to step up to the plate and do more for the community. Thats what tax money should be used for afterall.

Amen Pegg!

 

[kepha31]

Catholic Charities has accepted government funding to contract welfare services since 1979.
By contracting with the government and accepting funding, that funding is dependent on government rules.
Catholic Charities is free to provide charitable help under its own "rules" in the absence of government funding.
Children in need of adoption are considered "wards of the state", and as such, rules governing their adoption can be mandated by the state.

The same holds true for charities and adoption services run by Protestant organizations.

Fair enough, but the government suddenly changed the rules and refused exemptions for Catholic Charities, and the First Amendment got violated. Forcing any religious body to deny its own teachings is illegal. It's an encroachment no matter how you look at it. In fact, such decisons have been overturned in other places where same sex laws have been enacted, allowing Catholic adoption agencies to keep their higher standards than government requirements. Marraige must be between one man and one woman to be a marraige, and it is a primary ingredient when it comes to screening potential parents. The love between one man and one womanis the foundation of civilization, and much is at stake with this issue. Marraige is sacred to Catholics and it's not negotiable with cultural dictators.

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough, but the government suddenly changed the rules and refused exemptions for Catholic Charities, and the First Amendment got violated. Forcing any religious body to deny its own teachings is illegal. It's an encroachment no matter how you look at it. In fact, such decisons have been overturned in other places where same sex laws have been enacted, allowing Catholic adoption agencies to keep their higher standards than government requirements. Marraige must be between one man and one woman to be a marraige, and it is a primary ingredient when it comes to screening potential parents. The love between one man and one womanis the foundation of civilization, and much is at stake with this issue. Marraige is sacred to Catholics and it's not negotiable with cultural dictators.

If the church can not accept the rules given by the government then it must not receive government funding.
And as a side note, this fact did not violate the First Amendment.

 

[Kathryn]

Sheeze, I can't make myself read through all these posts. I'll just state my opinion and if I repeat that of others tiresomely, I apologize in advance.

I believe that Catholic Charities should be allowed to run their organization as they believe, under the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. That being said, I do not believe they should accept federal tax dollars in order to do so. That's the price one pays for sticking to one's guns.

But wait - Catholic Charities apparently does a great job of caring for foster children and placing them in loving homes. It's a shame that now they are losing some funding, right? Should they compromise their values to continue to receive the funding? Should federal programs blur the line between church and state in order to continue to fund these Catholic programs?

Yes, no, and no. Yes, it's a shame that Catholic Charities programs are losing some of their funding. Good Catholics and others who support their system should step up to the plate and bridge the gap. Maybe some restructuring of various Catholic charities is in order - or various diocese budgets.

Meanwhile, perhaps some groups which support the rights of gays to adopt should take what is best from the Catholic Charities programs, and implement those practices, and those individuals and groups which support the rights of gays to adopt should step up to the plate and fund THOSE organizations.

I personally believe that federal funding should only go toward programs which mirror federal anti discrimination laws. On the other hand, I don't believe that federal funds should be WITHHELD when it comes to some sorts of funds - for instance, those programs which help foster parents with expenses, or which offer tax refunds for adoption costs to adoptive parents.

Foster parents and adoptive parents should not be discriminated against based on their religious affiliation any more than they should be discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

 

[Oneatatime]

I don't see why any organisation, state funded or otherwise, should be allowed to disciminate against people on the basis of their sexuality. I think it indicates that there is still much work to be done in regards to promoting equality for homosexuals given the continuing willingness of people to accept discrimination against them.

Also appealing to anti-discrimination laws to protect ones discrimination against others is clearly nonsensical but precisely what some religious individuals and organisations do when they claim they are being subject to religious discimination. I would hope that there is something in the anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits the invoking of anti-discrimination laws as a means of perpetuating discrimination against others.

Religion remains one of the main barriers to the successful application of anti-discrimination laws because its wrongly seen as discrimination against the religious, it still holds a privilaged position in society resulting in it being granted special treatment, and is generally slow or completely unwilling to change its position on issues.

 

[Kathryn]

Should private hospitals be forced to offer abortions in cases where the mother's life is not in danger?

 

[kepha31]

If the church can not accept the rules given by the government then it must not receive government funding.
And as a side note, this fact did not violate the First Amendment.

This is getting ridiculous. Catholic charities has contracts with the govenrment. What makes everybody think its all government funding? It's a complex mutual agreement. Is it because the government is wrong and harping on this "government funding" nonsesne is all the excuse you can come up with? If laws are passed permitting gay marragie, then gays can go elsewhere, and they are told what agency will cater to their demands. Catholic Charities are sadly, forced to withdraw its services becaouse gay marriage is not a marraige. It's like telling evanglicals they have to deny God come in the flesh to qualify for adoption. The end result is clearly a violation of the First amendment.

 

[kepha31]

You do realize that the church's opinion is completely meaningless to non-catholics, right?

You do realize that the Church did not create marraige, right?
And it's teaching, not opinion.