Posted on 09/24/2004 12:30:44 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
During his interview, to assess his qualifications, the priest was given three hypothetical counseling scenarios by a Catholic Charities supervisor and asked how he would respond. The first involved a pregnant woman who’s decided to have an abortion and who comes in for counseling for depression. When asked if he would treat her for depression "without interfering with her decision to abort," the priest said he would not, but would consider her depression linked to her decision to abort and counsel against abortion. The priest was then "disqualified from counseling in abortion-related cases." The second scenario involved two men who come in for relationship counseling. When asked if he would "assist them without interfering with their relationship," the priest was disqualified from counseling homosexuals because he "expressed his intention of supporting the church’s teaching" on homosexuality. The third scenario involved a couple in the process of divorce. The priest said he would "make every attempt to encourage the couple to save the marriage." Again, he was disqualified. When he told the supervisor that the "atmosphere" at that Catholic Charities office "was hostile to Catholic ideas," the supervisor responded, "We get government funds, so we are not Catholic."
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnews.com ...
Ping
"It's not often the California supreme court gets it right!?"
The Catholic Charities supervisor told the priest: "We get government funds, so we are not Catholic."
Why do some of us donate money to Catholic Charities when the "management" feels thusly?
The ruling then, because the management of the charity conforms to government rather than Godly regulations, means that the term Catholic Charities is an oxymoron and redundant and that this is just another example of why the Catholic Church's new face needs a scrubbing!
Quite frankly, because we see the sort of work that they actually do. Despite what the article mentions about them not specifically counseling against abortion, I can think of no other charity in the US that has prevented more abortions by offering women other, and superior, options.
Defund them, and that will stop. Have you considered earmarking your contributions?
No. But I will.
what did you mean by commenting:
"It's not often the California supreme court gets it right!?"
This recent commentary from traditio.com explains the situation....
The truth is out. Catholic Charities are not Catholic. The California Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeals and ruled that Catholic Charities does not meet the requirement of being a religious employer, that Catholic Charities is not really "Catholic." Therefore, Catholic Charities will be forced to provide abortion coverage for its employees.
State law requires that to be considered as religious, an employing organization must meet all of the following criteria:
The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in...the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986, which reads, "churches, their auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches ... and the exclusively religious activities of any religious order."
Catholic Charities' own statement admitted that it was not religious or Catholic, but social and oecumenical:
The corporate purpose of Catholic Charities is not the direct inculcation of religious values. Rather, [its] purpose...is to offer social services to the general public.
Catholic Charities does not primarily employ persons who share its Roman Catholic religious beliefs, but, rather, employs a diverse group of persons of many religious backgrounds.
Catholic Charities serves people of all faith backgrounds, a significant majority of [whom] do not share [its] Roman Catholic faith.
Catholic Charities ... is not a nonprofit organization. Consequently,...Catholic Charities is not entitled...to an exemption
It is hard to take exception to the California Supreme Court. Catholic Charities by its own definition is not "Catholic"! We hope that next the courts will find that the New Order dioceses are not Catholic either.
More bang for the buck.
"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all - unless you are Catholic". Somehow this does not sound like the pledge I recited as a child.
Somebody in this thread wrote, "It's not often the California Supreme Court gets it right!" Are you kidding? Do you really believe they are right? Then you are falling for their agenda hook, line, and sinker. Abraham Lincoln stated that a house divided against itself can not stand. When we as a people condone the infringement upon the rights of our own countrymen for any reason, then we can no longer claim those same rights for ourselves. Indeed, if we will deny the rights of our countrymen, then we have already lost them. You can not deny my freedom because I am a Catholic without losing your own.
Sadly, the California State ruling is a first – compelling an organization to do something which is in direct opposition to its own beliefs. How can this be happening in the United States? How can we still claim to be the world's model for a democratic free society? How can we argue with people of other lands who see us as arrogant hypocrites when we legislate millions and millions of our own children to their deaths and our highest leaders violate the laws of our own constitution? They sure hit the nail on the head when it comes to the California Supreme Court.
It’s time we open our eyes in America. Anti-Catholicism is not only the last accepted form of bigotry in our land, it is now actively legislated and encouraged by the courts.
The California Supreme Court says that Catholic Charities are not Catholic. That is ludicrous! Are these judges totally illiterate, totally blind, or just the epitome of arrogance and bigotry? Their ruling is not just, nor is it any accident. It is a direct, intentional, hostile, and criminal attack on religious freedom. Do you think I’m just spouting off words in anger? Then what about Justice Janice Roger Brown, the lone dissenter to the California Supreme Court decision? She clearly identified the real agenda behind this decision when she wrote, "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."
Do not be fooled by their cloak of false sophistication, it is deceit. It is a hate crime just as evil as the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama church bombings. Their purpose is one, and that is to silence people of faith and strip God and religious freedom from our culture – and that is very scary when people in authority take that kind of power onto themselves. If the California Supreme court says that Catholic Charities is not Catholic, then I say the California Supreme court is opposed to freedom of religion – therefore the California Supreme court is Marxist.
Catholic Charities is a Catholic organization that provides care in many different areas to all people, regardless of race or religion – that’s why it called charity! But because they do not limit their services to Catholics alone, under this guise and excuse the court would now compel Catholic Charities to do what is in direct opposition to their religious beliefs.
This will leave Catholic Charities with no choice but to stop offering prescription drug coverage of any kind to its employees. This is their only way out short of outright refusal to obey the ruling.
This refusal to act by the liberal Supreme Court justices sends a message to the state governments that there are no limits on state intrusion into religious freedom. Which freedom will be the next victim of their perverted interpretation of the law? Maybe a freedom that is near and dear to your own heart! Although they pretend not to see the link between this case and religious freedom, at the same time, these same justices are somehow managing to find grounds for legalizing sodomy and calling it marriage. Coincidence? No way! Is freedom of speech next? Will it too be perverted into meaning "keep your mouth shut if you do not practice secular relativism, the official religion of the state".
As our culture continues in its current rate of moral decay, the day can not be far off when refusal to obey the law due to an arrogant and hypocritical government's total lack of regard for religious freedom will be forced upon us as our only option. Then we will see outright persecution of Catholics and eventually other Christians as well for refusing to abdicate their faith. AWESOME!! Let it start!! Maybe when these judges start seeing their own family and friends going to jail because they stripped them of religious freedom, the grave consequences of re-writing the constitution of our founding fathers to fit their personal whims will become obvious.
If they want a battle, then they will have one – and they will lose just as sure as Hitler, Stalin, and Marx lost. They will fall as sure as Marxism, Nazism, Communism, and the Berlin Wall fell. Because, to paraphrase the words of the late President Reagan, they cannot withstand faith, they cannot withstand truth, and they cannot withstand freedom.
May God Bless America,
Mark
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.