Posted on 07/15/2005 11:29:25 AM PDT by nypokerface
JACKSON, Miss. - A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."
Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.
"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."
Sandy and Robert Steadman, who learned of Bethany's decision in a July 8 letter, said their priest told them the faith statement did not conflict with Catholic teaching.
Loria Williams of nearby Ridgeland said she and her husband, Wes, had a similar experience when they started to pursue an adoption in September 2004.
"I can't believe an agency that's nationwide would act like this," Loria Williams said. "There was an agency who was Christian based but wasn't willing to help people across the board."
The agency is based in Grand Rapids, Mich., and has offices in 30 states, including three in Mississippi. Its Web site does not refer to any specific branch of Christianity.
Stewart told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that the board will review its policy, but she didn't specify which aspects will be addressed.
The Web site says all Bethany staff and adoptive applicants personally agree with the faith statement, which describes belief in the Christian Church and the Scripture.
"As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world," the statement says in part. "Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another."
Sandy Steadman said she was hurt and disappointed that Bethany received funds from the Choose Life car license plates. "I know of a lot of Catholics who get those tags," she said.
She added: "If it's OK to accept our money, it should be OK to open your home to us as a family."
Bethany is one of 24 adoption and pregnancy counseling centers in Mississippi that receives money from the sale of Choose Life tags, a special plate that motorists can obtain with an extra fee.
Of $244,000 generated by the sale of the tags in 2004, Bethany received $7,053, said Geraldine Gray, treasurer of Choose Life Mississippi, which distributes the money.
"It is troubling to me if they are discriminating based on only the Catholics," Gray said.
My mom's side of the family was Northern Irish, my father's Irish.
Some have long since forgotten and forgiven.
I'm Catholic, my sister is Evangelical.
God bless America.
The Benny Hinn comment was so obviously a joke.
I know the type you are talking about.I am a weekly church going Catholic and I know the path to salvation.There are SOO many people out there that have NO religion or very little religious background.These are the ones that really need to be shown the way to salvation.
I thought he was just being sarcastic without the tag.
I find it hilarious that Protestants will welcome anyone into their "prayer circles" except the Mother of God! ;-)
The settlers of the South are largely the protestant Scots-Irish, with a long history of defending themselves against outside influences and catholicism in particular.
Sounds reasonable to me. I was simply not aware that Catholic dogma was codified to this extent.
Church; and thus the Church is part of His redemptive work. If redemption means salvation then I can see why fundamentalist and Catholics do not agree on this point. But if redemption means something else then it should be explained as such. Allow me to reiterate my belief that salvation does not depend on what one's theology is, but to what extend the individual
Mary was the first disciple. Not to quibble about the definition of "disciple" but is there any historical evidence that Mary was ever referred to as a disciple of Christ? And what about Joseph? Was he not a disciple? Was he not there in the manger where Jesus was born? Why the emphasis on Mary to the exclusion of Joseph?
Actually Mary was not given the name "full of grace" she was said to be such. therefore I can not accept your analogy with Abram to Abraham etc. What is Mary's unique representation? What is your definition of Church? You may want to be guided by Vatican II on this?
Mary "heard the Word of God and kept it? Do you mean to say that she was sinless? Is that your point? I realize that you have a Catechism but if I my direct your attention to Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Where can I find an exception for Mary to that all encompassing statement?
intimate union with Christ. Or as St. Paul said, "I live: yet, not 'I', but Christ lives in me." But He is also present in the Tabernacle? Why is that?
we are part of His work of salvation: What must I do to be saved? Can I participate in someway in your salvation by doing something other than preach the gospel to you? So by taking up my cross and following Jesus I am in some way adding to his finished work on the cross?
You seem to be using the term "salvation" in a much different meaning than is my understanding of the term. Perhaps unless we can agree on definition of words, we will not be able to communicate without first creating a common language.
You are absolutely correct!
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
Is the Bible the sole authority and foundation of truth for Christianity? No, the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and the final authority (Matthew 18:17). Furthermore, there are traditions to be observed which are on equal footing with Scripture for not everything the Apostles taught or Jesus said, was written down (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; John 21:25).
They teach heresies such as transubstantiation
Actually, Christ taught transubstantiation.
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." - John 6:51-56
also teach that one must be a catholic to be saved
The Catholic Church has always taught that salvation is a gift from God (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10) and that men and women must accept that gift through faith.
"Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: 'Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.' [1 Tim 1:18-19 .] To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; [Cf. Mk 9:24 ; Lk 17:5 ; Lk 22:32.] it must be 'working through charity,' abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church. [Gal 5:6 ; Rom 15:13 ; cf. Jam 2:14-26.]"
Catechism Catholic Church
this INDIVIDUAL suggests that you:
1. start tagging sarcasm?
2. go live in your beloved England
3. stick your head in the ground
4. learn some history
If it weren't for the Catholic Church how do suppose you would even know of Christ?
He is barely mentioned in anything except The Word, which was preserved and passed down to us by the Church Fathers.
And that is where we differ, for Jesus was NOT tellingPeter that HE, PETER was the Rock the Church was built upon, but the truth that Peter SPOKE WAS THE ROCK, that Jesus is THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, and THAT is the ROCK Jesus spoke of when He called Peter a STONE.
Jesus never called Peter a rock, he called him a stone.
Go back and do a search for each time ROCK is used in connection with God, start with Deuternomy, each time ROCK is used it refers to GOD as Creator or Saviour, and is NEVER used to describe a person.
Calling Peter the rock is against every reference in the Bible regarding ROCK and God and Creator and Saviour.
Catholics are Christian.
"although I doubt the Catholics descriminate against other Christians."
Catholics most assuredly discriminate against other Christians, and they have for centuries.
I am a direct descendant of French Huguenots who were dragged from their home onto the street, where their throats were slit (somewhat like victims of islamic terrorists). If a 14-year-old son had not escaped, I wouldn't be here.
The Vatican issued a special medal and congratulations to the perpetrators of these and thousands of other murders at the time. As far as I know, there never has been an apology, although they have apologized to just about everyone else.
Nonetheless, if I were running an adoption agency, I would certainly place children with healthy Catholic families, and also Jewish families. The good of the child is the main concern.
At the same time, it is up to the agency. If they are doing the work, they should get to set their own policy, short of placing children in dangerous situations.
Tolerant Group
Wow. You've expressed some very apt questions and insightful comments here; I honestly don't know if I can give adequate answers. But I'll try! And I'll also ping this over to some knowledgeable folks who can maybe do better. But thanks for the challenge.
You wrote (referring at the Catechism of the Catholic Church): "I was simply not aware that Catholic dogma was codified to this extent."
It should please your lawyerly heart that the Catholic Church --- or, more accurately, the Latin Church --- is famed for defining, parsing, and codifying down to the last jot and tittle. And then putting it in searchable form.
By way of contrast, the Catholic Churches of the East (Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, and of course our esteemed brethren the Orthodox) tend to rely less on dogmatic definition, and more on beautiful, allusive language. I always say that where the West has one line of dogma, the East will have a page and a half of exquisite chanted poetry.
That's why I think the East and West need each other. We're like the right brain and the left brain. Separated, we're a little like half-wits! But I digress..
You wrote: "If redemption means salvation then I can see why fundamentalist and Catholics do not agree on this point. But if redemption means something else then it should be explained as such."
I'd like to defer to somebody else to answer this one, because in some places I've probably used the terms "salvation" and "redemption" interchangeably, but I don't think that's quite right.
I think "redemption" means the price that Christ paid, and that's a done deal: Jesus has paid the price. He is the redeemer of the world. The redeemer of all mankind.
But that doesn't result in "Universalism": everybody automatically saved. Almighty God desires that all men should be saved, but each person has to opt-in, so to speak.
You wrote: "..[I]s there any historical evidence that Mary was ever referred to as a disciple of Christ? And what about Joseph? Was he not a disciple? Was he not there in the manger where Jesus was born?"
Off-hand, I can't think of any individual who was referred to specifically as a disciple in the Gospels. OK, John: "the disciple whom Jesus loved." But for the most part, it is a general designation for anybody who follows Jesus.
Mary would be the first disciple because she consented to His conception in her womb. The second would be, I suppose, his cousin John the Baptist, who recognized him when they were both unborn babies. Check out the first couple chapters of Luke. These stories are dear to all young Christians, and furthermore tend to prove that Luke listened to women ;->
You wrote: "Actually Mary was not given the name "full of grace," she was said to be such."
As you no doubt know, the New Testament was written in Greek; and the Greeks have been calling Mary by the name or title "Panagia" for over 1000 years. I think they'd have a better idea than you or I would, about the linguistic significance of names, appellations, and titles.
In any case, if she was "said to be" Full of Grace -- by God's messenger, the Archangel Gabriel --- the Church (East and West) takes it that Full means Full. Pan. Plena. Ponder that.
You wrote: "What is Mary's unique representation?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mary is the Theotokos (going back to the good old Greek again), the Mother of God.
"What is your definition of Church?"
Ah! The Catechism!
752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.
"You may want to be guided by Vatican II on this?"
You may want to read what the Catechism says on this?
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
You wrote: "Do you mean to say that she [Mary] was sinless? ...if I my direct your attention to Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Where can I find an exception for Mary to that all encompassing statement?"
Short answer: Full of grace. God seems to have made an exception of her. She needed Christ to be her Savior of course, but she was saved before she was born; and she was, in terms of personal thoughts, words, and deeds on her part, without sin.
All I can say in favor of this interpretation is that it was believed by the earliest Christians, and has been believed by Christians for 2000 years since then, and is still believed by 90% of the world's Christians (Catholic + Orthodox.)
The Greeks have invoked the intercession of "..our all-holy, spotless, most highly blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary" since the days of St. John Chrysostom -- and maybe some of our Orthodox brethren can fill us in on the Scriptural and theological explanations going back even farther than that.
You wrote: "St. Paul said, "I live: yet, not 'I', but Christ lives in me." But He is also present in the Tabernacle? Why is that?"
God is everywhere. Everywhere. Fills all things, and infinitely surpasses all things. But we are only, to differing degrees, open or receptive to His presence.
An example, by way of analogy. Say there's a woman in a bed, in a coma. There's a man in the room with her. He's present, but she don't "receive" his presence at all.
Now imagine that she wakes up from the coma. She sees him and hears his voice, but she still doesn't recognize him. She has amnesia. But she does perceive some level of presence.
Now he speaks to her and touches her hand. She recognizes him.
He tries to give her nourishing, lifegiving food and drink. But she has no appetite for it. Yet he urges her.
She finally eats the food. She find she has new life within her.
The woman's health and vitality advance, and also her closeness and understanding with the man, until finally her amnesia lifts and she realizes that this wonderful man is in fact her husband, that she is his chosen bride. If they end up in the marital bed, she will experience an astounding and intense reception of his presence: a presence which was there all along, but which she received only by degrees until the ultimate recognition of Lover and Beloved.
I think that may suggest a way to understand salvation, too. It is not just some technical thing. It is a drama of triumphant, saving Love.
"Uh, you are kidding right? Every branch of Christianity that exists today as an organized religion traces itself directly back to Catholicism."
This is not historically true. What about the Eastern Chruch? What about the Coptics? (And there are others.)
The point is not in forgiving, it is about not denying it happened.
Some deny it happened.
It is impossible to forget what some deny happened at all.
To just forgive, but deny what clearly took place, is foolish, and makes liars out of those who deny.
I’m not sure if I am up to a tag team match on this subject for two reasons. First it is not a subject that I am schooled in and secondly regrettably I don’t have the time to devote to it.
I looked up redemption in a Bible Dictionary: Basically it deals with the atoning work of Christ, ie: His death on the cross. It was the price paid to redeem us. Redemption implies antecedent bondage, our bondage to sin, the dominion of Satin over evil to which man fell victim, and spiritual death which is the penalty for sin.
Christ is our Redeemer, by his blood shed on the cross he paid the penalty for sin, by our faith in Him as our redeemer, not by anything we do or done for us by others, but by our faith in Christ. His death is sufficient to pay for all the sins of the world. Our good deeds evidence our faith, but are not part of the redemptive process.
Salvation is a term that refers to several forms of deliverance, from the temporal and from the spiritual. Primarily the salvation offered by God through Christ’s death is a gift and if we accept this gift we are saved from the penalty of our sins and have everlasting life. There is no notion in Christian fundamentalist theology of working one’s way into heaven, a concept that I have heard applied to Catholic theology, although Catholics do not universally see salvation in those terms.
Any further discussion on this subject would in my opinion be counterproductive. Allow me to leave you with this blessing.
God loves you. I respect your belief and that you follow the dictates of your conscience. I respect that you are a Catholic. Just to clarify any misconception that you might harbor about me, I consider Catholics as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not in the least bit interested in converting anyone to my beliefs. I rejoice that you are a Christian and desire to do the will of God.
It’s all good. God bless you, your family, and your friends, and may you have everlasting life and enjoy the fruits of your faith.
Scott Hahn
David B. Curry
Mark Shea
Marcus Grodi
All great reads.
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.