"Catholic Charities foster future in limbo"

By Manya A. Brachear, Tribune reporter August 3, 2011 When Pat Schlesser's marriage ended 16 years ago, it was an opportunity to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming a foster parent — a mission her former husband had not shared. A lifelong Roman Catholic, she turned to Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Joliet. But the agency turned her away, advising her not to take on foster children so soon after a divorce. Now she realizes the agency's qualms paid off for her two daughters and the 14 foster children who have since lived in her Wheaton home. "I suppose I could've at that point said, 'They don't like divorce' and felt there was some bias," said Schlesser, 50, a registered nurse. Instead, Schlesser returned a year later, more adjusted to single motherhood. She has served as a licensed foster care provider ever since.

Squeezed out is exactly right. The secular elite of the country is at best uncomfortable with, and in most cases actively hostile to, any faith-based organization that is not firmly under their control, or which does not adhere to Liberal dogma.

Given their druthers, and as an ultimate goal, the Catholic Church and all its organs in America would be under the control of a body similar to China’s Patriotic Catholic Association, which full powers to set limits on doctrine, approve Priests and Bishops, etc.

At the very least, they are determined to bring Catholic hospitals and social services to heel — or put them out of business completely.

As a Catholic, I can tell you that these agencies are only threatened when they use gubmint funds. They are allowed a much freer hand if they would stop taking Caesar’s gold.

With a little digging, you’d be surprised how much of the social work and medical care is subsidized by gubmint funds.

That’s true to an extent, and I also always used to think that if they refused to take government money, they’d be free to run their agencies the way they wanted. However, it’s more complicated than that. Children are usually placed in these agencies not directly (by parents who can’t care for them, for example) but through the city or the courts, which contracts with the agencies to provide care. However, this means that the city also demands certain things, which once upon a time were fairly harmless and related to standards of care, etc., but are now mostly things that are part of the secular social engineering program.

About 20 years ago, Cardinal O’Connor faced down the City of New York, which was demanding that girls in foster care be given “access” to abortion and contraception. Since the Church took care of huge numbers of NY’s foster children, the City gave way. But things have changed since then and the secular program is much more aggressive. The Church has already lost a couple of cases already involving resistance to these things (payment of benefits for “gay spouses,” etc.).

In addition, the laws have been extended so that even to qualify to be licensed for foster care or adoption services, you have to comply with the state’s social engineering policies. Since no agency or entity can operate without a license, this means that even if they don’t accept a single client from the city or the courts and concentrate entirely on private adoptions or foster care, they still have to comply with all of the licensing requirements.

So it’s unfortunately not as easy as it used to be. Caesar is busy sealing off the exits.

Thank you for this clear explanation. Unfortunately, too many social conservatives advise Christians that they can simply disengage from public institutions that are going to the devil. But those institutions set norms for society that we simply cannot avoid, if only because we must live in the same world with those whose lives are shaped by them.

In addition, I think the State is becoming much more agressive in its attempts to legally crush the Church.

One thing that many Protestants don’t realize (and this is not meant as a criticism of Protestants, but simply as an observation) is that when they complain about what they perceive as the formerly great political power of the Church, they are complaining about the only thing that could successfully face down the State and preserve the private sphere.

Much of the history of the Church is the history of conflicts between Church and State (whether the State was a king or a Marxist commissar) and Protestants don’t understand that the function of the Church was to preserve the space for Christian faith and moral life, regardless of the government of the time.

Theocracies (like Islam and Calvin’s Geneva) attempted to make civil and religious law one and the same, but the Church has always known that God and Caesar have their separate spheres...and that God’s sphere must be defended by the successors to St Peter, imperfect though they may be.

I’m sure that the Bolsheviks want the state to administer everything, whether it be social programs run by religious non-profits or anything else run by the private sector. Even the “private sector” companies have to hire so many token blacks, Hispanics, and women to be awarded any government contracts; Caesar has flexed his muscle there already.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.