Catholics persecuted by the USA

[RestoreTheJoy]

Because people realized that maybe discrimination using government money was bad.

It isn't discrimination for a church to recognize marriage as defined by scripture as it always has, rather than recognize the recent redefinition.

 

[Arcangl86]

It isn't discrimination for a church to recognize marriage as defined by scripture as it always has, rather than recognize the recent redefinition.

Treating couples that are legally married differently is a clear example of discrimination.

 

[Serving Zion]

Treating couples that are legally married differently is a clear example of discrimination.

If the world's definition of marriage is different to scripture's definition of marriage, then the church should not be issuing marriage certificates in the name of God. I think it's a good point to raise with churches, so that they can use the word "marriage" in a secular context to satisfy those who wish to enjoy the splendour of a church setting without the religious connotation, while also not misusing the name of God.

 

[Serving Zion]

Now the government is demanding the Church defy scripture to continue to help families adopt children. That is wrong, as the government has ZERO business interfering in scriptural matters.

It is more that there is a disagreement about what is considered morally superior. The church has not been able to convince the government, and the government is now enacting force to uphold what it believes is the greater morality.

 

[Serving Zion]

church people frankly are not so magnanimous that they will take on the challenges of meeting the needs of these kids on a voluntary basis.

Yep. Take the talent away from him and give it to him who already has (only, that churches all just look like churches to an outsider..)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Treating couples that are legally married differently is a clear example of discrimination.

There was no such concept...until a rogue Supreme Court decision in 2015. The Church isn't ever - until absolute apostasy is evident and Jesus is imminent - going to accept a redefinition of marriage.

It is not and cannot be marriage in the faith. That is an impossibility.

This is a Catholic charity. Don't like their guidelines? Adopt elsewhere.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If the world's definition of marriage is different to scripture's definition of marriage, then the church should not be issuing marriage certificates in the name of God. I think it's a good point to raise with churches, so that they can use the word "marriage" in a secular context to satisfy those who wish to enjoy the splendour of a church setting without the religious connotation, while also not misusing the name of God.

Pick another word. Marriage is not nor has it ever been secular in nature, despite recent trends. Have marriage in church, and secular partnerships elsewhere.

 

[Arcangl86]

There was no such concept...until a rogue Supreme Court decision in 2015. The Church isn't ever - until absolute apostasy is evident and Jesus is imminent - going to accept a redefinition of marriage.

It is not and cannot be marriage in the faith. That is an impossibility.

This is a Catholic charity. Don't like their guidelines? Adopt elsewhere.

This is government money. Don't like the rules? Don't accept the money. It's no different then if an a secular agency decided not to place children in households with religious family members. The government represents all people and as such the government cannot discriminate.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This is government money. Don't like the rules? Don't accept the money. It's no different then if an a secular agency decided not to place children in households with religious family members. The government represents all people and as such the government cannot discriminate.

I already said that earlier.

Because of this revision of the meaning of marriage, despite its long history as a partner, so to speak, with governmental agencies in getting children placed, the Catholic charity cannot both take government money and be faithful to scriptural proscriptions.

So the federal money has to go, more's the pity, for the children who won't be helped.

Already stipulated.

 

[Arcangl86]

I already said that earlier.

Because of this revision of the meaning of marriage, despite its long history as a partner, so to speak, with governmental agencies in getting children placed, the Catholic charity cannot both take government money and be faithful to scriptural proscriptions.

So the federal money has to go, more's the pity, for the children who won't be helped.

Already stipulated.

Or they will be helped by other agencies that choose to accept the stipulations that come with the money. Either way it's not persecution.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Or they will be helped by other agencies that choose to accept the stipulations that come with the money. Either way it's not persecution.

I agree it's not persecution. It's just stupidity. Let's make sure as many kids aren't helped so we can push our illogical agenda!

 

[Arcangl86]

I agree it's not persecution. It's just stupidity. Let's make sure as many kids aren't helped so we can push our illogical agenda!

Yeah, all those children not being placed with loving families because they don't meet the morality standards of of religion. That really is illogical.

 

[Serving Zion]

Pick another word. Marriage is not nor has it ever been secular in nature, despite recent trends. Have marriage in church, and secular partnerships elsewhere.

It doesn't need to become a fight like that would produce though - you aren't going to be on top if you begin forcing people to define words a given way. If secular people want to use the word "marriage" in a way that doesn't fit with Christian knowledge (as they do with the word "Christianity", for example..), it shouldn't be a problem for Christians - quite obviously we are speaking a different language at that stage.

As long as the definition is clearly and validly expressed in the ceremonial words that describe the commitment being made, that is enough to define what the word means.

What is the purpose of a marriage ceremony anyway? Is it not only a formality like circumcision was to Abraham, that evidences to the carnal man, a certificate of the commitment? .. the commitment is truly made in the moment of proposal (unless there is an unusual circumstance that would invalidate it: "if anyone has knowledge why these two should not be married, let him speak now or forever hold his peace").

 

[Serving Zion]

loving families < -- > morality standards

There is the flaw in logic: morality is to do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Placing children under the influence of caregivers who have a corrupted sense of morality, is subjecting the children to the influence of immoral spirits.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yeah, all those children not being placed with loving families because they don't meet the morality standards of of religion. That really is illogical.

No, Catholic Social Services have historically only placed children with families for the last hundred years. Other configurations are not families. For the last hundred years, that was customary and fine.

Now, suddenly, to satisfy a very small percentage of the population since 2015, we have to pretend that any two people constitute a "family", that men are women, that (insert other illogical positions here).

Intentionally depriving a child of a mother or a father is just wrong. Sure, someone is better than no one, but the goal of this particular charity is to place them with families.

 

[Archivist]

I agree it's not persecution. It's just stupidity. Let's make sure as many kids aren't helped so we can push our illogical agenda!

If you are going to take Federal funds you follow Federal law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, Catholic Social Services have historically only placed children with families for the last hundred years. Other configurations are not families. For the last hundred years, that was customary and fine.

Now, suddenly, to satisfy a very small percentage of the population since 2015, we have to pretend that any two people constitute a "family", that men are women, that (insert other illogical positions here).

Intentionally depriving a child of a mother or a father is just wrong. Sure, someone is better than no one, but the goal of this particular charity is to place them with families.

What's that Jimmy, you lost your mother and so your father is a single father and a widower? Well little Jimmy, what you have isn't a real family. Real families have both daddies and mommies.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JCFantasy23]

Because of this revision of the meaning of marriage, despite its long history as a partner, so to speak, with governmental agencies in getting children placed, the Catholic charity cannot both take government money and be faithful to scriptural proscriptions.

So the federal money has to go, more's the pity, for the children who won't be helped.

Again this is way oversimplifying it.

Any foster child is a ward of the state, so the church cannot make up its own rules wanting to foster that child. I repeat: You cannot disconnect the state when the state is the one who has actual custody. Even if the child is housed at a Catholic agency or religious group home, the state is still the one who has actual custody. Even if the Catholic agency wants to pay for most of the child's care themselves, that is fine, but that doesn't give them actual custody. This is why it is the state that is held liable if something goes wrong and can be sued.

The only way around this that I can see is if the agency wanted to act as foster parents and not a placement agency or group home, went through the court system and was awarded guardianship custody, becoming foster parents for real instead of a group home or agency helping out the state. The process usually takes several months, sometimes up to a year. If the state and judge agree to issue custody to the Catholic service, then to adopt out the Catholic service would have to go to court again and say they want to relinquish custody of the child and transfer it to another parent or home. This would be complicated, costly, time consuming, and more stressful for the child. This would also very much limit how many children they could take in - more than 3/4 different. The agencies don't do this because it doesn't make sense - it benefits no one, certainly not the child, or them, or prospective adopters, or the state. No one.

The bottom line is that it is connected to the State and State Law, this is nothing new, but it wasn't an issue before now because at the time State Law agreed with the Catholic services about marriage. Now that this law has changed, either the Catholic service needs to stop fostering children or it needs to agree to abide by state law.

 

[JCFantasy23]

It isn't discrimination for a church to recognize marriage as defined by scripture as it always has, rather than recognize the recent redefinition.

You are correct that it is their right to do that - however, to be able to foster children they have to follow the law since they are state wards.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You are correct that it is their right to do that - however, to be able to foster children they have to follow the law since they are state wards.

The law is wrong.

But you are right...the only answer is to stop taking federal money. If the Church (universal) did its job and supported the things God wants done, it wouldn't be an issue.