A reader writes:
A few other converts to the Catholic faith and I read and discuss your blogs frequently, and I was hoping you could write yet another. Could you answer the question as to whether or not it is right for the state to pull funding from the Catholic Charities in Illinois based on the fact that the Catholic Bishops do not allow homosexual couples to adopt the children they protect? The article can be found here. In other words, is the state violating the First Amendment when it pulls funding for a religious group based on said group’s convictions? Also, how would you answer the objection that the First Amendment has not been violated by the state in regards to the Illinois Bishops since a religious conviction is not enough to justify one’s acts? For example, the state does not protect religious entities that believe horrific things like the subjugation of blacks or the murdering of sinners.
When the Church does a work of mercy such as feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, or facilitating adoptions for children who need parents, she is doing something that is in accord with the natural law. The proper role of a healthy state is, of course, to help facilitate good works in accord with natural law to help serve the common good, whoever is doing them. However, we do not live in a healthy state, but in an extremely and increasingly diseased one. Consequently, parenthood is no longer conceived of in terms of the natural need of children for a mother and father, but in terms of the demands of homosexual narcissists who require children to accessorize their demand to be perceived as “married”. Ultimately, the purpose of gay “marriage” is not to establish the ontological impossibility of marriage between two people of the same gender, but to create a legal basis to punish the Church and other religious traditions who fail to pretend that homosex is the source and summit of all that it noble, true, good, and beautiful. One early manifestation of this program is the decision of the state to refuse funding to Catholic organizations who recognize the right of children to a father and mother and who refuse to subject them to the immoral experiment of placing them in a home with gay parents. The Church has a perfect right to refuse to do this, but does not have a right to expect the state to fund them, since the first amendment does not guarantee a right to state funding of works of mercy. Caesar has the right to withhold his moolah if he likes (though he is wrong to do so). The Church will alas, just have to muddle on without the cooperation of Caesar and keep doing works of mercy as best she can. The big losers, of course, will be the poor whom the works of mercy are to serve. But narcissists bent on punishing the Church are not interested in that.
Meanwhile, Caesar does not, however, have the right to fund something that is immoral. Nor does he have the right to compel the Church to do what is immoral. He does, however, have the power to do whatever wicked thing he likes as long as he can get away with it, which is basically what is happening now, as the state moves from withholding funds from the Church as passive punishment for non-PC ungoodthink and moves toward actively attempting to compel her to underwrite grave evils like abortion and sterilization or face draconian fines. That must be actively resisted.
The Church’s power to serve the common good is, of course, harmed by the state withholding funds to help her do works of mercy and that is bad, but the Church is not *owed* state support and—as the clash over gay adoption illustrates—a Church that comes to be dependent on state largesse for its works of mercy is a Church that is increasingly at the mercy of that state. When Caesar passes from passively punishing the Church for failing to permit gay adoptions and moves to actively compelling the Church to do things it considers gravely contrary to the moral law, a line is crossed though. Comparison of resistance to gay adoption to subjugation of blacks or murdering of sinners is a non-starter for the simple reason that both of these acts are contrary to the natural law. Refusing to pretend there is such a thing as gay “marriage” or that children are best served by subjection to social experimentation instead of adoption by a father and mother is not contrary to natural law. Similarly, it is simply not the case that refusal to underwrite contraception, sterilization and abortion is contrary to natural law since all of these are contrary to nature given that pregnancy is not a disease, babies are not tumors, and abortion is not helping to serve human life, but to destroy it.
Comments
Post a Comment
Excellent commentary as always, Mark. There is one aspect of this problem you have missed, however. In some cases, the state (which state it is varies) has decreed that if you are to do a particular work of mercy (e.g., find homes for homeless children) you MUST ALSO do a grave evil, like assign a child to live with two active homosexuals as his guardians. In this, the state has exceeded its rights, and one could argue that it has violated the first amendment.
“The big losers, of course, will be the poor whom the works of mercy are to serve. But narcissists bent on punishing the Church are not interested in that.”
True. These very same narcissists say how the Church should stick to helping the poor, go about trying to remove the Church from the public square and any government tax dollars, when the Church gives the biggest bang for the buck on social programs.
At the risk of being considered paranoid, there is another objective the secularists seem to have in their agenda, and that may be found in the statements of Obama and others concerning the limitation on an individual’s deductions for charitable contributions from Federal taxes. By so doing, they hope to rein in the Church’s role in the providing of services in matters such as adoption, care giving, and education, etc., so the needy are more reliant on the government for such things. By this device, the state gains control over the type services provided without such nettlesome things such as consciences guided by religious precepts with which it disagrees.
The Church is loosing in the pubic square because the pulpits have been silent too long. Catholic education has consisted of ‘programs’ which in today’s busy society is usually not well attended. Instead, priests need to use the time they have at mass to educate from the pulpit and then have added educational material in the narthex.
Until the Church gets real and recognizes the loss of its freedoms is due to the fact many people don’t know or understand the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality,abortion or birth control, we will continue to loose in the public square. Their focus on helping the poor, because they receive a lot of money from gov’t and business grants, has also aided in their silence on the spiritual works of mercy. Stressing the spiritual works of mercy would also aid the poor but is not politically correct so the tragedy of poorly formed conscience continues and the loss of religious freedoms with it. We just need to look to our Canadian neighbor to see our future.
Previous comments have touched on some of my concerns. I would gladly have the Church stop taking government dollars, but what happens if you need a license from the government to be allowed to carry out your work and licenses are denied (even without state funding requests) based on Church teachings regarding homosexuality. Also troublesome the desire on the part of the government to eliminate the deduction for charitable contributions. This will not keep me from donating to the Church, but as taxes and fees increase, I may not have anything left to donate.
I disagree with your analysis. Political power does equal rights. If the state has the power, it can define anything as a “right” and make it stick. The converse is also true. If the state decides, and has the power, to remove a “right” (say religious freedom), then that “right” is gone.
In the end, there are NO “inalienable rights,” only privileges extended from the powerful to the weak; privileges extended to consolidate political power by bribing the masses.
I’m actually waiting on that lady to show up and try to twist Mark’s words to say that he supports the exploitation of women at Irish laundries.
I know it’s not the topic, but it’s always entertaining. I’m sure she’ll be along shortly.
I agree with the above commenters who worry about the State restricting an act of mercy regardless of whether or not the Church or entity is receiving State funds. creativefidelity.wordpress.com
Right on Mark!
The argument that religious conscience will allow any group that proclaims itself a religion to do as they wish is one that has been raised often. Many atrocities have been committed by those who claim they are doing good. Natural law is the answer but most people do not understand what natural law is. (The state of our education today is a tragedy.) Perhaps you could write a post expounding what natural law is, how it has been applied in history, and why it matters in the issues that are facing us today. It would be helpful to have a succinct explanation to use in defending the Catholic position.
I agree with Lori in which she states that this issue is greatly the fault of the lower and higher clergy who decided back in 1968 after Pope Paul released “Of Human Life” Remember the first “official statement” on this from Bishops? It was signed by the Canadian Bishops in Winnepeg in September 1968. In this phoney statement picked up on by the media was a “freedom of conscience” to act or not act on this issue. Well, I may be wrong on this but there is NO “freedom of conscience” for Catholics on INFALLIBLE issues of either faith or morals (Contraception Abortion and other issues in marriage and family issues fall under morals. And as far a “freedom of conscience” Protestants believe in this but Catholics do not. The conscience must always be properly formed. PLEASE READ THIS ENCYCLICAL!
It really highlights the need for more vocations with a vow of poverty. How many grants did mother Teresa ever ask for?
In both Illinois and Massachusettes, Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption field not because they received government funding (they did, but could have forgone the funding and turned entirely to private funding). They were forced out of the adoption field bc they could not obtain a state license. So what one of the above posts feared has already happened: states refuse to license entities which cannot conform to the states regulations on “non-discrimination.”
While I certainly agree this is a freedom of religion issue, and also agree that a same-sex attracted couple is not the appropriate setting for the rearing of a child, I take exception with the tone of Mr. Shea’s original posting. Narcicism is rampant in our culture, with heterosexual couples feeling “entitled” to a child and breaking every church teaching in the book and a whole raft of natural laws to produce the “ideal” child. I am speaking here of practicing Catholics whom I know personally. Surely the writer who mentioned the lack of properly formed consciences would find that lack of formation int he majority of Catholics today. But casting words like “narcicism” like the verbal stones they are is scarcely likely to pursuade others of the validity of our point of view nor of the necessity of bringing others to an understanding of Natural Law. Same-sex attracted couples are human beings and like all human beings, they wish to be accepted, they wish to give and receive love, and they wish to have a closely knit group—some call it a family—within which they can feel comfortable. This may result in more and more people thinking of them as potentially suitable parents for children, and it may even be that many leaders of the gay-rights movement have this acceptance as their agenda when they push for adoption rights. But I find it hardly credible that the majority of same sex attracted individuals who try to adopt do so primarily, or even periferally, because they are pushing a nefarious social agenda. I think most same-sex couples who wish to adopt have the same desires as anyone else who adopts has: to love and be loved; to give a safe and happy home to a child who might otherwise be neglected or abused. In my vies, such a home is not in the best interests of the child. I also think a single adoptive parent is not in the best interests of a child. But such a parent would (single, that is) would be a lot better for the child than living on the street, or suffering other forms of neglect and abuse.
Thank about it, please. Do you really think same-sex attracted people are egomaniacle, narcisstic monsters who care only for their own needs and desires and have no capacity or desire to give and receive love in the selfless manner a parent is so often called upon to do? Or rather, are they not bearing a cross, just as are all of us sinners, and do they not rather deserve our empathy and love rather than our verbal stones? I may not think same-sex couples are “owed” children, and I certainly do not think any religious organization who holds homosexuality to be a sin should be forced to place children in such homes, but neither do I think that same-sex attracted individuals should be labelled “narcisstic” because they are willing to undertake the considerable expense and inconvenience of rearing a child.
If you cannot deliver the service according to the government’s rules, do NOT accept the funding. As a person of faith, I do not want my tax dollars being used to discriminate. I also do not want to force religious institutions to go against their teachings, but no one is forcing them to take tax dollars. Raise your own damn money, don’t use mine for discrimination.
Very good post.
To follow up a little on what jm said: the government ought not have the funds to fund you with in the first place and even if you can live by today’s government rules, tomorrow might be another story. It is time the bishops (re?)discover the concept of Subsidiarity and for the rest of us to take the time to step up. It was easier of course when we had an army of religious sisters and brothers but who knows what might happen with respect to vocations if we restore a comprehensive notion of “professional”.
Why should a religious position be unquestioned? Faith has no answers, just wishful thinking.
Yeah. Because nobody has ever questioned the Catholic faith. Quelle courage! I bet you bask in the applause at your weekly Herd of Independent Minds meetings.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.