Gays to Orphans of Peoria

October 28, 2011 By 21 Comments

“Our narcissism is more important than your stupid need for a loving home. If we want to smash Catholic Charities for failing to pretend that gay “marriage” is real or that children don’t need a loving mother and father, we will. It’s all about us!”

Filed Under: Uncategorized 21 Comments
  • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com Anonsters

    Yes, because the Catholic Diocese of Peoria has a property right to a contract award for provision of social services…. What?

    Anyway, did you also notice that the new contractee is apparently taking over quite a chunk of the Catholic Charities infrastructure (including 200 employees), which “‘allows the team of professionals working at Catholic Charities to largely stay intact.’”

    So what’s the gripe all about? Because it appears to me that the gripe is just that it won’t be called Catholic Charities and that the money won’t be awarded to the Diocese of Peoria, but to a non-Catholic group that does not claim a religious exemption from an otherwise generally applicable state law.

    When the Church fundamentally disagrees with the rules you’re required to follow in order to play the game with state money, even if the game is something as vitally important as foster care, the right thing for the Church to do is to not play, but in the meantime to make the transition as painless and smooth as possible. Exactly what’s happening here.

    If the Diocese of Peoria wants to provide social or charitable services while refusing to recognize the state civil unions law, I’m sure it can do so. Just without state money. Render unto Caesar.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “Render unto Caesar”

    The objection is not about whether we should render unto Caesar.

    The objection is that the newer “transgressive,” “transformative” Caesar is becoming more and more totalitarian and less and less respectful of the consciences of people of faith.

    The ballgame has a whole new set of rules. That’s the objection.

    The argument that you “obey orders no matter what” puts us on a direct course to a situation in which a young military recruit who refuses a direct order to mistreat a prisoner, or to open fire on unarmed, non-combatant civilians can be successfully court-martialed for disobeying a direct order, and in which Catholic (or other) individuals may be fined or imprisoned for refusing induction into a military which does not allow for conscience exemptions under such conditions.

    The “I was obeying Caesar’s orders” defense didn’t hold water at Nueremberg. And it won’t hold water in the minds of Catholics and other Christians who object to our newly-totalitarian government’s efforts to cast the weeds of political correctness onto everyone’s front lawn.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    P.S. It would appear that under today’s new rules, the defendants at Nueremburg (“I was obeying orders” to slaughter civilians) would have gone free and ended their days sipping pina coladas by the Riviera.

    You do whatever Casesar tells you to do. And to hell with your conscience. And if you don’t like that, then crawl under a rock and die. There’s a suitable rock right over there. That’s the message.

    Christians need to say, “to hell with that!”

    • Confederate Papist

      Sadly, you’re in the minority on this Marion…as am I. In numbers, no. In government and media…yes. Before long, government will regulate the internet, the only place left in the world where the free expression of ideas still flows without hindrance, and there will be no more voice of the faithful or dissent.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Then you need to be brushing up on your hacking skillz, bro.

        • Confederate Papist

          I’m not that good. I’d rather be off the grid!

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “Because it appears to me that the gripe is just that it won’t be called Catholic Charities and that the money won’t be awarded to the Diocese of Peoria, but to a non-Catholic group that does not claim a religious exemption from an otherwise generally applicable state law.”

    This is another instance of standard-issue, self-righteous finger-wagging made at people of faith when the Borg Collective Juggernaut makes yet another incremental move to crush our resistance to its Darkness.

    “Catholics whose consciences forbid them from targeting infants in the womb for destruction shouldn’t go into the medical profession. We pipe the tune. You dance to it, or get out.”

    “Catholic landlords whose consciences forbid them from renting their basement apartment to a cohabitating couple should be prevented from advertising. We pipe the tune. You dance to it.”

    “Catholic hospitals whose consciences forbid them from issuing contraceptives will be fined, and if necessary, fined into bankruptcy and ultimately shut down. We pipe whatever tune we want to, and you will dance to it. Or we will break your legs.”

    This is far, far beyond Caesar anymore. This is the Borg Collective.

    “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

    Well, I don’t know about all y’all, but my plan is not to roll over and play dead.

    • SKay

      “Well, I don’t know about all y’all, but my plan is not to roll over and play dead.”

      I agree with you Marion.

  • http://www.ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/ Randy

    To the extent Catholic Charities was Catholic it will no longer do this work. But many of the employees don’t care much what the bishop thinks. They are OK with placing children with same-sex couples. Much of the money is from the state. Most of the private donors are not all that upset either. So the bishop took a stand. God bless him. But it does not seem that many stood with him. Of course the article could be ignoring that side of it. But it seems like Catholic Charities had lost it’s Catholicism long ago. This just makes it official.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “But many of the employees don’t care much what the bishop thinks. They are OK with placing children with same-sex couples. “

    We have little way of knowing what these employees care about. These employees may not be delighted with placing innocent children into the unsupervised care of adults involved in gravely disordered relationships.

    It’s just that on such short notice, and in this economy, how many of us would be in a position to walk away from our jobs, and continue to pay the mortgage, the health insurance, etc.?

    More and more our Borg-Continuum-Caesar will begin putting Catholics and other people of faith into this same position: live out your Catholic faith in all its fullness. Or put food on the table for your family.

    Pick one. Those are your choices.

    And I hope that when the Dark Side puts me and my family into that position, and as a result I’m in the process of scrambling to figure out what to do, and my interim choices don’t measure up to what Truly-True Catholics (TM) think I should be doing, that I don’t come into the cross-hairs of the Catholic Circular Firing Squad.

    Which could also happen.

    If the Borg don’t get you, then the Truly-true Catholic Circular Firing Squad will come after you.

    Lord, have mercy.

  • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com Anonsters

    Marion:

    It’s deeply ironic that, on the one hand, you set your hair on fire and flail your arms around about how profoundly evil the government is or has become, while on the other hand, and simultaneously, you rend your garments and gnash your teeth over the fact that Catholic Charities will no longer be receiving … wait for it, wait for it … government money to provide government-supported and governmented-mandated social services.

    • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

      Believe it or not, the government has an interest in enlisting the charitable work of religious organizations. By providing tax breaks to them, that is less manpower, expertise, etc. that the government has to allot from its own resources to do these things, so they can concentrate on doing other things. The idea that “we give you tax breaks, so you have to do what we say” is a recent phenomenon. This is where much of the frustration lies. It is absolutely no skin off the government’s back to respect the beliefs of the charitable organizations that they ostensibly want to be teamed up with to promote the general welfare.

      • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com Anonsters

        You’re conflating tax breaks with contract awards. Very different things indeed.

    • SKay

      Marion is thinking of the children-not the left leaning government.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      ” you set your hair on fire and flail your arms around”

      It’s obvious you are a member of the male sex, Anonsters, or you would know better to say such a thing; no self-respecting lady would allow an ignition source anywhere near her hair.

      Especially not after it’s just been “done.”

      And the “flailing of arms” could result in bruises or contusions to the wrists or hands, or worse, in damage to one’s mani(-dammit!-)cure

      “about how profoundly evil the government is or has become, while on the other hand, and simultaneously, you (object to) . . . the fact that Catholic Charities will no longer be receiving government money to provide government-supported and governmented-mandated social services.”

      I wouldn’t agree that it is our government which is evil, but to be precise, the introduction of anti-Christian subversion into government is evil, such that what once was a good government now dares to demand of the Catholic Church that she choose to either abandon her obligations to the needy, or that she abandon her obligations to serve Almighty God with integrity.

      Men of honor, even in government, would once have deemed it unseemly to impose such a demand upon any religious body, and would have been doubly averse from doing so where the well-being of poor and innocent children might in any way be impinged by their so doing.

      Now, however, it would appear, that anything which men in government can conceive of demanding, however unseemly it may be to the governed, they not only demand, but willingly hold the needy and the vulnerable hostage until their demands are met.

      Enfin, it is not the “evil” of government, but the evidence of loss of honor within what once was an honorable system of government, that I have objected to.

      • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com Anonsters

        Marion:

        Touche on the hair. On the nails, however, I have known many a female in my life who are all prepared to make damaging use of them. :)

        You said:

        . . . such that what once was a good government now dares to demand of the Catholic Church that she choose to either abandon her obligations to the needy, or that she abandon her obligations to serve Almighty God with integrity.

        Again, the government isn’t requiring the Church to abandon its obligations to the needy. What the government is saying is: if you want government money to do the work, you’re going to have to abide by the rules the government sets for the programs it’s paying for.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    “What the government is saying is: if you want government money to do the work, you’re going to have to abide by the rules the government sets for the programs it’s paying for.”

    Not quite. Not only the government funds are at issue; Catholic Charities is precluded *by law* from continuing to use its experienced professional staff and in-place resources to run a parallel foster program on privately donated funds, while continuing to follow all government rules and regs EXCEPT any which contradict the word of God.

    Such as, no children into the homes of adults involved in gravely disordered relationships.

    Gravely disordered relationships as suitable places for children without homes.

    That’s the sticking point. The government is willing to make THAT the sticking point over whether the Church is to continue this work. Money or no money. If the government severs ties, it is illegal for the Church to continue this work.

    That the government would make such an issue – gravely disordered relationships – the sticking point, yes, is and should be profoundly troubling to people with their heads screwed on right.

    • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com Anonsters

      I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of foster care. Foster care comes about because of either a voluntary or mandated transfer of legal responsibility (custody or guardianship) for a child from their parents or guardians to the state. So, 89 Ill. Adm. Code 301.30 provides:

      Placement or substitute care services means the care of children for whom the Department is legally responsible who require a living arrangement away from their families due to abuse, neglect, dependency, voluntary surrender of parental rights or consent to adopt by a specified person, or voluntary placement agreement and for whom the Department has determined that family preservation services are not appropriate because such services are not in the child’s best interest or would not protect the child from imminent risk of harm.

      Unless the state has legal responsibility for the child, it has no role in child placement (read: foster care). Put differently, foster care just is the state’s management of its legal responsibility for children, arising either from voluntary surrender of parental/guardian rights or from an adjudication by the state that the child’s best interests require the child to be removed from the home of the child’s parent(s)/guardian.

      It’s not “illegal” for the Church “to continue this work,” simply because there is no way that the Church could continue to work in foster care services without the state’s sanction. Some action can’t be illegal if it’s literally impossible for the action to occur. Foster care services begin and end with the state. They may choose to contract those services out to private providers (and that’s exactly what they do). But in that case, contractees are going to be bound by the terms and conditions of the contract.

      Look at it this way: the Church would have no role in providing foster care services if it weren’t for the state in the first place, because there would be no foster care services to provide. Contrast that with, say, running a soup kitchen for the homeless. The need for soup-kitchen-for-the-homeless services would exist independently of the state’s legal responsibilities, because the need for soup-kitchen-for-the-homeless services derives not from the state’s legal relationships but from reality, viz. that there are hungry homeless people. Foster care services, on the other hand, are needed only because of the state’s legal relationships (viz. its temporary legal responsibility for a child).

      • Marion (Mael Muire)

        “It’s not ‘illegal’ for the Church “to continue this work,” simply because there is no way that the Church could continue to work in foster care services without the state’s sanction.”

        Oh, please.

        Cir·cu·lar/ˈsərkyələr/ argument

        • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com Anonsters

          It’s not circular for exactly the reasons I gave in the post above, which you obviously did not get.

          What breaks the circle? The fact that foster care services are only needed if the state assumes legal responsibility for a child. If the state got out of the child welfare business altogether, there would be no system of foster care, and so there would be no Catholic work in foster care. Or do you think that Catholic Charities, in that alternate world, would have the legal authority to remove children from abusive homes?

          Finally, I point you to the sentence immediately following the one you quoted, which, I think, clarifies exactly what I meant: Some action can’t be illegal if it’s literally impossible for the action to occur.

  • HBanan

    “Gay marriage/adoption won’t affect anyone else! If you don’t like it, don’t do it yourself. Haha, it is so silly to suggest otherwise.”

    “Oh, look, the local (fill in blank) lost its license/is being sued/has been fired for not helping out with gay marriage/adoption. Serve them right for being so prejudiced!”

    In the next state over: “Gay marriage won’t affect anyone else!”

    repeat 50x over