The US Catholic Bishops rejection of VAWA because of gay inclusion

[Christy]

This is old news but why did the Catholic bishops in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops oppose the Violence Against Women Act because of the inclusion of sexual inclusion and gender identity? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...cs&ir=Politics I wouldn't think that helping people who were attacked, and live a sinful lifestyle would be against Catholic beliefs, it's not against Christian beliefs. I'm sure there's more to it than that, however that's how many people are thinking including lay Catholics. I don't really know a lot about the act.

[Spartacus]

Could you post a link for reference?

[Christy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...cs&ir=Politics

[Spartacus]

The HuffPo article linked to in your link is probably a better source.

The concern seems to have revolved around provisions in the bill that would endanger federal funding of various Catholic charities.

[Christy]

Here's the article with the full statement in it:
http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-046.cfm

[Spartacus]

So there are 2 objections-- the one about funding, which I think is probably defensible, and the gender identity/orientation question. It seems as though (but I'm not by any means certain) that they saw it as validating the anthropological theory surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation.

[Christy]

What I don't get is why a Christian organization would think helping somebody in a sinful lifestyle as being against their conscience? How would helping somebody who was abused or a trafficking victim who's gay or transsexual be the same as condoning their lifestyle? It's not the same as refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the owners would think that if they did that they'd be celebrating something they see as sinful. Is the new part of the act saying that even saying being gay is a sin a form of violence?

[Spartacus]

What I don't get is why a Christian organization would think helping somebody in a sinful lifestyle as being against their conscience? How would helping somebody who was abused or a trafficking victim who's gay or transsexual be the same as condoning their lifestyle? It's not the same as refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the owners would think that if they did that they'd be celebrating something they see as sinful. Is the new part of the act saying that even saying being gay is a sin a form of violence?

How are you getting all of that from the article? I don't see any support for the premises of your questions in any of the articles.

[Christy]

I may be reading this wrong.

[Spartacus]

It's referring to providing abortion referrals for rape victims.

[Christy]

It's referring to providing abortion referrals for rape victims.

I thought that's what was meant after reading it again.

[Spartacus]

I thought that's what was meant after reading it again.

Alright then. Any remaining questions?

[Christy]

I don't know

[Spartacus]

I've been wondering about the role of federal funding of Catholic charitable efforts. It can become not only a question of funding, but of licensing: if, in order to be allowed to provide these services, catholic organizations had to provide abortion referrals, etc, how should these organizations respond? By disbanding? By violating the law and continuing regardless? By obeying the law and forsaking their consciences? By totally secularizing their charitable functions?

[Darth Executor]

By calling another Crusade.