They accept taxpayer money from state and local governments, the attached obligation is to treat all equally.
I personally believe that this is the
best argument that someone could make on your side of this issue.
However, I still don’t believe that this argument has merit for several reasons.
The first thing that needs to be mentioned is the fact that the Catholic Church had been offering adoption services in this country several decades
before they had ever accepted any government funding. The first Catholic sponsored placing of children in homes (rather than orphanages) was in 1898 by the Catholic Home Bureau which had been organized in New York by the St. Vincent de Paul Society.
After the National Conference of Catholic Charities was formed in 1910 they expanded and grew and offered many services to the poor and destitute. They accomplished a lot, but I won’t mention them all here. There is too much. You can read more about the things they accomplished here:
http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/religious/catholic-charities-usa/
The first instances of the National Conference of Catholic Charities receiving any government funds was during the Great Depression as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. It was the Federal government that reached out to faith-based organizations (FBOs) during this time of crisis.
In his October 4th, 1933 address to the National Conference of Catholic Charities, FDR said,
“The Federal Government has inaugurated new measures of relief on a vast scale, but
the Federal Government cannot, and does not intend to, take over the whole job. Many times we have insisted that every community and every State must first do its share.
Out of this picture we are developing a new science of social treatment and rehabilitation—working it out through an unselfish partnership,
a partnership between great church and private social service agencies and the agencies of Government itself. From the point of view of fixing responsibilities, the
prevention of overlapping, the prevention of waste, and the coordination of effort, we are, all of us, making enormous strides with every passing day. But back of that cooperative leadership that is showing itself so splendidly in every part of the country, there are two other vital reasons for the maintenance of the efforts of the churches and other non-governmental groups in every part of the land.
The first of these is that much as you and I strive for the broad principles of social justice, the actual application of these principles is of necessity an individual thing—a thing that touches individual lives and individual families.
No governmental organization in all history has been able to keep the human touch to the same extent as church and private effort. Government can do a great many things better than private associations or citizens, but in the last analysis, success in this kind of personal work in which you are engaged depends upon personal contact between neighbor and neighbor.
The other reason lies in the fact that the people of the United States still recognize, and, I believe, recognize with a firmer faith than ever before, that
spiritual values count in the long run more than material values. Those people in other lands, and I say this advisedly, those in other lands who have sought by edict or by law to eliminate the right of mankind to believe in God and to practice that belief, have, in every known case, discovered sooner or later that they are
tilting in vain against an inherent, essential, undying quality, indeed necessity, of the human race—a quality and a necessity which in every century have proved an essential to permanent progress—and I speak of religion.” (Bold and italics added)
You can read the entire address here:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...he-national-conference-of-catholic-charities/
FDR recognized the value of FBO and other private organizations. It was the Federal government that first reached out to FBOs because these organizations had already developed an efficient means of distribution and they and a personal connection with their communities. With government funding these organizations could accomplish more and take on more, relieving the Federal, State and local governments from the burden of managing these extensive services.
This reliance of the U.S. government on FBOs steadily increased over the decades. Especially with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” in 1964.
Even though this union of Church and State accomplished a lot of good it was not without its bumps. Some FBOs were targets of discrimination when competing for government contracts. Also many FBOs had been forced to remove sacred symbols or artworks from their buildings before they could be considered for government funding. These and other violations of the First Amendment caused other FBOs to refrain from receiving government funds, because they felt that it could compromise their religious beliefs.
For example, from 1985-1995, Catholic Charities of Boston had been contracted with the State’s Department of Social Services to support their adoption services program. During that time they had placed thirteen (13) children with homosexual couples. This was obviously a violation of their beliefs, but they felt compelled to do it because they received State funding.
To address these growing issues, there was a reform made to welfare law in 1996 called The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It contained something called the “Charitable Choice” provision.
This provision was written to encourage FBOs to consider offering federally funded social services to the public. It outlined how the FBOs religious freedoms would be protected while they offered these federally funded social services. The four essential principles of this provision were,
- Faith-based providers are eligible to provide federally-funded social services on the same basis as any other providers, neither excluded nor included because they are religious, too religious or of a different religion.
- The religious character of faith-based providers is protected by allowing them to retain control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs. Neither federal nor state government can require a religious provider to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art, icons, scripture or other symbols in order to be a program participant.
- In regard to rendering assistance, religious organizations shall not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or refusal to actively participate in a religious practice. If an individual objects to the religious character of a program, a secular alternative must be provided.
- All government funds must be used to fulfill the public social service goals, and no direct government funding can be diverted to inherently religious activities such as worship, sectarian instruction, and proselytization.
The FBO, and only the FBO, can
define what they believe. Such as “marriage” being only between one man and one woman.
The third principle says that while the FBO is “rendering assistance” they shall not “discriminate” against an individual on the basis of “a religious belief”, however it also clearly states that if someone “objects” to the “religious character” of the program (such as Catholics believing that homosexuality is a sin and not recognizing “same-sex marriage”) that person can receive a “secular alternative”.
Therefore, before you or anyone starts crying out “discrimination!” you have to consider if a “secular alternative” was offered.
The Catholic Church has every right to believe what they want and to act on that belief as long as that belief does not infringe upon someone else’s rights. And considering that adoption is
not a fundamental right (proven above) and adoption agencies
can reject prospective parents if they feel that it was not in the “best interest” of the child, where is the “discrimination”?
Where is the “discrimination” when the FBO directs prospective parents to other organizations that could help them?
Even though this provision had been added to encourage FBOs participation in offering government funded social service, FBOs were still cautious to participate.
This led to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives executive order which had been established by George W. Bush in 2001. This initiative was designed to strengthen faith-based and community organizations. It would essentially expand their capacity to provide federally funded social services. The Feds wanted FBOs to reconsider their decisions to not partner with government.
Many FBOs were afraid to receive government funds because they felt that it would invite government-imposed limits on their religious expression. A clear example would be demanding that the Catholic Church “recognize” “same-sex marriages” and therefore consider them as prospective adoptive parents.
The last thing I am going to say about this topic is about the fourth principle mentioned above, “no
direct government funding can be diverted to inherently religious activities such as worship, sectarian instruction, and proselytization”.
In 2010, Catholic Charities USA made almost $5 billion, and $2.9 billion of that was federal tax-payer money. This means that $2.1 billion of their income came from donations and other investments. Also, we need to consider that prospective parents pay various adoption fees throughout the adoption process.
Just because the FBO is receiving government funding that does not necessarily mean that the government is directly paying for all the services they provide.
The question I pose to you is if the FBO does not use any “direct government funding” for their adoption services, but uses money from donations and adoption fees to pay for those services instead, do you feel that they should still be required to offer adoptions to same-sex couples in violation of their beliefs?
In summary, the Catholic Church was offering adoption and other services long
before they received any government funding. They began receiving government funds at the behest of the government to help the nation in a time of crisis. The government could not handle the task. A provision was given so that a FBO religious beliefs would not be compromised while they offered these services. If anyone has an issue with the beliefs of the FBO, they can receive a secular alternative.
The government begged the Catholic Church for help and promised that their religious beliefs would not be compromised while they gave that help. The Catholic Church does
not need government funding for it to function and offer social services.
However, without government funding, less and less people are going to receive aide and local, State and Federal governments are going to need to hire and train and manage those services which will cost more money.
If they don't wish to comply with the law, - they should give up the licenses.
Which law states that they have to give children to prospective homosexual parents?
