In Illinois, a church-state conundrum of real consequence
Here’s the crux of the issue, as described by the New York Times:
“Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.”
The Illinois diocese sees itself as a victim of religious persecution. “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” as Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki put it. The church believes that it should be able to use taxpayer dollars as it wishes, in line with its religious beliefs, even if its actions violate Illinois law forbidding discrimination against its gay citizens.
I would argue that the church is not being persecuted. It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding “special rights” to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so. It’s akin to some church or social agency taking state money to run soup kitchens to feed the poor, but demanding the right to deny aid to black people or Hispanics.
The church, using its own funds, would have every right to refuse to assist in gay adoptions. The First Amendment gives it that protection. But by accepting taxpayer dollars, it accepts the conditions that come with it. As the Times reports, “Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations).”
A couple of other points:
– There is no evidence that children raised by same-sex parents are harmed by the experience. Quite the contrary. In other words, the church’s objection may be based on moral grounds in its eyes, but it cannot be justified in terms of policy or pragmatism.
– It’s a shame that Illinois church leaders decided that discriminating against gay couples was more important to them than continuing to provide much-needed services to orphans and neglected children. Catholic leaders in other parts of the country have made the opposite decision.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
487 comments Add your comment
Real Scootter
December 29th, 2011
1:19 pm
Enter your comments here
Real Scootter
December 29th, 2011
1:19 pm
grin:
Logical Dude
December 29th, 2011
1:23 pm
So, they couldn’t continue without taxpayer funds? hmmmmm. . .
Bruno
December 29th, 2011
1:25 pm
There is no evidence that children raised by same-sex parents are harmed by the experience. Quite the contrary. In other words, the church’s objection may be based on moral grounds in its eyes, but it cannot be justified in terms of policy or pragmatism.
I’m not 100% sure of that, Jay, but fully support your larger point that if you are going to accept tax dollars, you have to play by the rules.
Since when did the Catholic Church start needing our tax money??
Common Sense isn't very Common
December 29th, 2011
1:27 pm
I wonder where Sanitorium and Newt stand on this issue?
stands for decibels
December 29th, 2011
1:27 pm
“Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.
well, they’re flaming a-holes, then.
Getting personal for just a moment, but I had firsthand experience with a Catholic church-based group in another state, that trained and assisted parents wanting to adopt. Their first official adoption (this was a somewhat lengthy process, and I was in the process while they were just getting under way) was to a gay couple.
That organization had no problem with same sex couples; I have no idea why these a-holes in Illinois do.
What a-holes. (Have I mentioned that they are a-holes? Because they are.)
Real Scootter
December 29th, 2011
1:27 pm
I don’t think the Gov. should be giving money to a church for ANY reason.After all they don’t pay any taxes.
Libertarian
December 29th, 2011
1:29 pm
“The church, using its own funds, would have every right to refuse to assist in gay adoptions. The First Amendment gives it that protection. But by accepting taxpayer dollars, it accepts the conditions that come with it.”
Totally agree Jay…but wouldn’t this also apply to planned parenthood’s ability to perform abortions or give out the morning after pill?
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:29 pm
Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates
Hmm, so much for being able to rely on charity instead of government when you are sick or poor!
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2011
1:30 pm
I thought charitable giving did not require the taking of taxpayer dollars. I learn something new every day about just what being charitable really means… to some.
stands for decibels
December 29th, 2011
1:31 pm
but wouldn’t this also apply to planned parenthood’s ability to perform abortions
Uncle Sam isn’t footing that bill.
Jay
December 29th, 2011
1:32 pm
Yes it would, Libertarian. Which is precisely why Planned Parenthood uses only its own funds for such services.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 29th, 2011
1:32 pm
In my opinion the Catholic Church should not whine about being the object of tolerance in this case. To hell with tolerance.
But at the same time, do we not do ourselves a disservice by refusing to acknowledge the difficulty that these new changes in societal norms represent for traditional institutions like the Catholic Church?
Ultimately it’s a good reason for eliminating any tax-payer funds at all going to religious institutions.
0311/1811
December 29th, 2011
1:32 pm
Jay:
Isn’t it in your opinion a violation of “church and state” principles for the Chatholic church to get those funds anyway ?
Libertarian
December 29th, 2011
1:33 pm
The underlying issue here is that the govt shouldn’t be giving money to a church or charity. We need to cut federal spending…here’s $2.9 billion we can cut.
godless heathen
December 29th, 2011
1:34 pm
“I don’t think the Gov. should be giving money to a church for ANY reason.After all they don’t pay any taxes.”
The Church is a pass thru. The Federal Government gives away so much money it has to have subcontractors to help.
Real Scootter
December 29th, 2011
1:34 pm
Hmm, so much for being able to rely on charity instead of government when you are sick or poor!
If the Gov. is supprting the charity wouldn’t it kinda be the same thing Adam?
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:34 pm
Scout: Isn’t it in your opinion a violation of “church and state” principles for the Chatholic church to get those funds anyway ?
I would say it’s more of a “They shouldn’t” rather than “It’s unconstitutional.” That could just be me….
Libertarian
December 29th, 2011
1:36 pm
“Yes it would, Libertarian. Which is precisely why Planned Parenthood uses only its own funds for such services.”
Haha. I’m sure they keep their “abortion funds” in a different account from their “government funds.” So then, would it be ok for the catholic group to use the taxpayer money for gay adoptions and their own money for non-gay adoptions, in your opinion?
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:36 pm
Real Scootter: If the Gov. is supprting the charity wouldn’t it kinda be the same thing Adam?
Ah, and thus we find that churches either have to not accept government funds at all to support the libertarian ideal of government not helping anybody.
But the point I was making was if the charities can’t stay open without government funding, then you can’t rely on them if you take all government funding away from assisting the poor or sick.
Normal
December 29th, 2011
1:37 pm
Wow! I really don’t know what to say about this. It is so dumb. All I can think of is “love God, hate religions”. Religions are an anchor to enlightenment.
Bruno
December 29th, 2011
1:37 pm
Hmm, so much for being able to rely on charity instead of government when you are sick or poor!
Adam–One important difference between public and private charity to me is the impostion of conditions. For example, the Salvation Army is happy to help you, but asks that you repay them later when you are able. Personally, I’m in favor of conditional charity. All you have to do is look at the generations of welfare families to realize that unconditional charity creates long-term problems.
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:38 pm
Libertarian: So then, would it be ok for the catholic group to use the taxpayer money for gay adoptions and their own money for non-gay adoptions, in your opinion?
Sure. But then, they would not be saying “no gay adoptions.” Problem solved.
Real Scootter
December 29th, 2011
1:38 pm
The Church is a pass thru. The Federal Government gives away so much money it has to have subcontractors to help.
I’m not sure what you are saying godless.Could you please explain?
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:39 pm
Bruno: For example, the Salvation Army is happy to help you, but asks that you repay them later when you are able.
Asks you or makes you? I am in favor of them asking, but not in favor of them enforcing it.
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:40 pm
bbl folks
TimeForRealChange
December 29th, 2011
1:41 pm
I agree with Jay here. If an organization is getting federal funds, then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate like that.
However, as welfare programs have increased, charitable giving has decreased. And charities tend to do a much better job helping people than welfare. Maybe the answer to stop taking tax dollars just to hand them right back to people after the politicians have gotten their cut. Then the Catholics will get more private donations, and the gay and lesbian community can create their own charity to take private donations.
Or we can keep propping up a system that obviously isn’t working very well.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 29th, 2011
1:42 pm
For example, the Salvation Army is happy to help you, but asks that you repay them later when you are able
Perhaps. You may also have to sit through some religion and other indoctrination before you get your assistance, paid for by government $$.
stands for decibels
December 29th, 2011
1:43 pm
as welfare programs have increased, charitable giving has decreased.
cite, please.
King Of All
December 29th, 2011
1:43 pm
They have a moral dilemma. Like if Nazi shows up at the door and they are hiding a Jew in the attic they are not going to lie.
Normal
December 29th, 2011
1:43 pm
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction. — Blaise Pascal
Keep Up the Good Fight!
December 29th, 2011
1:44 pm
All you have to do is look at the generations of welfare families to realize that unconditional charity creates long-term problems.
Wow, you can tell by just looking at them and not looking at underlying issues and the real facts and situations. I bet it was painted on their faces by the broad brush.
theyeshaveit
December 29th, 2011
1:44 pm
It is a conundrum. The Catholic Charities were doing good work, but…”But” is always a big word.
I would like to see religious organizations pay taxes, too. How many “reverends” are there out there getting a tax break while starting up “theology” schools?
Finally, has anyone tweeted Tim Tebow of late?
TaxPayer
December 29th, 2011
1:45 pm
So then, would it be ok for the catholic group to use the taxpayer money for gay adoptions and their own money for non-gay adoptions, in your opinion?
I don’t recall them offering to do that.
Real Scootter
December 29th, 2011
1:45 pm
Adam
December 29th, 2011
1:36 pm
I gotcha Adam.Thanks
Libertarian
December 29th, 2011
1:47 pm
TaxPayer
1:45 pm
I don’t either. But this is a discussion, no?
Normal
December 29th, 2011
1:48 pm
You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. –Anne Lamott
Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love.– H. L. Mencken
theyeshaveit
December 29th, 2011
1:49 pm
as welfare programs have increased, charitable giving has decreased.
cite, please.
sfd,
It may well be that charitable giving is down, but I believe the reason is the state of the economy. Was it just me, or were those Salvation Army folks ringing the bells harder this Christmas?
Erwin's cat
December 29th, 2011
1:49 pm
Can this be considered a sort of gov’t regulation that the church wishes not to comply and therefore limits it’s own contribution in order to meet the regulation
Is this a church or gov’t issue….who’s the real villain here?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 29th, 2011
1:50 pm
Well, we’re the majority and if we don’t like Gay Marriage we should be able to make sure gays don’t get any of our money. It don’t matter what courts say, They’re being Activist if they want churches to let Gay couples adopt kids.
But I’m in a bind here. I hate the Gays and the Catholics about the same. So maybe we should make the Catholic churches stop molesting kids before they can get any our our money for anything.
Anyhow, I feel better already now that I’ve let it all hang out. Sometimes you got to let your hatred loose on something before you can feel good.
Matti's Grasp of Reality
December 29th, 2011
1:52 pm
TAX THE CHURCHES!!!
theyeshaveit
December 29th, 2011
1:53 pm
Matti,
See my 1:44.
stands for decibels
December 29th, 2011
1:54 pm
Was it just me, or were those Salvation Army folks ringing the bells harder this Christmas?
answer might be here…
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111126/BUSINESS/311260078/Volunteer-bell-ringers-needed-Salvation-Army-reduces-paid-collectors-cites-effectiveness
lliberalefty
December 29th, 2011
1:55 pm
my oh my, religion being used to deny people equal rights,lol.
Thulsa Doom
December 29th, 2011
1:55 pm
“It’s a shame that Illinois church leaders decided that discriminating against gay couples was more important to them than continuing to provide much-needed services to orphans and neglected children.”
That’s a pretty judgemental statement. There are plenty of Christians that believe that homosexuality is a sin, “an abomination before God” as one scripture says. Doesn’t mean they hate gays. Just means they believe homosexuality goes squarely against biblical principles and that they won’t do anything that endorses homosexuality. That’s all.
josef
December 29th, 2011
1:56 pm
JAY
If this is your attempt to get me BACK in your corner, you’ve succeeded (not seceded!
)
This is a no-brainer. The religious institution is free to teach and practice what it deems fit and should have every governmental protection thereof. If and when they take government funds (which I think they shouldn’t simply from the expediency that it creates a conflict of interests), then they are bound by the government’s attached strings.
lliberalefty
December 29th, 2011
1:57 pm
REDNECK
kids get molested in baptist,methodists,AME, unitarian,Jehovah witnesses churches too.
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 29th, 2011
1:58 pm
THAT’s the way to show those orphans you reeeally care, conservatives.
lliberalefty
December 29th, 2011
1:59 pm
thulsa
they are discriminating against gays…
Matti's Grasp of Reality
December 29th, 2011
1:59 pm
Blah blah plenty of Christians blah blah homosexuality is a sin, blah blah “abomination before God” blah blah blah.
Well then, THOSE people should politely decline any invitation to engage their own bodies in such activity, and mind their own G.D. business! Just sayin’.