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.
Amen, street_lawyer, this is precisely right.
When Catholics say Mary is the MOther of God, we mean exactly what you said, "Mother of the God-Man." We do not mean that Mary is the ultimate "source" or "origin" of the eternal and ever-living God.
This is an except from the Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia:
At the Third Ecumenical council, the Council of Ephesus (against the Nestorians), A.D. 431, it was decided that it was entirely appropriate to refer to Mary as the Theotokos, to emphasize that Mary's child, Jesus Christ, was in fact God (Denziger §111a).
That Council clarified that the Church Fathers "did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Mother of God" (ibid.), thus affirming what had always been held as true: e.g. St. Ignatius of Antioch, ca. A.D. 110 (Jurgens §42); Alexander of Alexandria, A.D. 328 (Jurgens §680); among other references from similar sources. She is often referred to as "Theotokos" in Eastern Orthodox hymns.
No Christian thinks Mary a "supergoddess" who brings the Trinity into existence. That is not what is meant by the title Mother of God ("Theotokos") It means, precisely, that she is the mother of (woman who gave birth to) a person, Jesus Christ, who is one Being, one Person, God and Man.
Denying mary this title inevitably leads to the heresy of Adoptionism.
You quoted John 3:16. You can find that in the Bible. However, the workings of the Trinity are suggested in the Bible (especially in Matthew and mostly in John) but not fully explained (they are a profound Mystery). These things were worked out in the earliest days of the Church by the Church Fathers and virtually all Protestant denominations defer to the Catholic Church in this understanding since to do otherwise is to fall into Arianism and an entire panoply of errors (see Hillaire Belloc, "Heresies").
Thus, do you believe that God is Co-Eternal with Three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in one Divine Nature? Those are the rudiments of the Trinity. If then God the Son was "incarnated" taking on human flesh, He was a Divine Person, God the Son, with two natures, Divine and Human, and was born of Mary, a human. Thus, she gave birth to the Son and is the Mother of God which was the point under discussion.
Frank
BTW: You are the street lawyer. Common Law states that silence is construed as "assent" and not negation. That I didn't answer you should convey assent unless I do respond negatively.
---Dont you see it yet? Each time someone from the RCC tries to make a point about their doctrine, it almost ALWAYS is against Scripture? ALMOST EVERY Time?---
----If a person cannot tell the difference between praying for each other and praying TO each other, especially when one of the people is dead, that is insanity, not Scripture.---
I am searching for the Truth just as much as you! I will respond "where is the Canon of Scripture to be found in the Bible?" If it is not defined, then how do you know you are reading the TRUE Bible, the inspired Word of God? The Canon is not listed, Race! So, you end up in a circular argument. It is the full governing principle of ALL your beliefs, Sola Scriptura, and yet it doesn't list its own contents anywhere!
Perhaps you should read the book, "Theology and Sanity" by the real Frank Sheed. He may answer some of your questions. Or perhaps try "The Catholic Verses" by Dave Armstrong.
S/F
Frank
Of course, it was a very High Church parish, and I am now a Catholic. I think it's the High Church-Puseyite-Oxford Movement-"Catholic Lite" folks who believe in the Real Presence, not the Low Church-Evangelical group within ECUSA.
I'm afraid ECUSA is doomed -- it was barely hanging together as a "big umbrella" sheltering a wide range of beliefs. GC 2003 just stretched the umbrella until it was irrevocably torn apart . . . and that exposed all these other differences that had been overlooked until now. The "High Churchers" like myself are going to wind up going over to Rome, or possibly Orthodox, unless there's an APCK parish near enough to attend. The "Low Churchers" have a lot more choices, including most of the continuing churches.
The saints, including Jesus' mother, are not "dead."
As Jesus himself said, God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and He is not a God of the dead but of the living.
Jesus testified that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive, though physically dead.
You adopt the Sadducees position on this issue - not the Biblical one.
(2) Asking someone to pray for you is not prayer "to" them. As has been pointed out to you many times, Catholics ask saints to pray for them, they do not pray "to" saints they way one would pray to God.
You continue to build a straw man.
Simply because you labor under the delusion that saints who are physically dead cannot be alive in Christ and therefore cannot pray for us, does not mean that the Bible teaches such a self-contradictory doctrine. Mary is as alive today as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in Jesus' day and I will take His testimony on the matter of whether saints like Abraham or Mary are dead.
I have read the Bible for myself, that's why I stay.
RB believes that his personal interpretation, which happens to almost exactly coincide with John Calvin's personal interpretation, of Scripture is correct.
However, you and I also search the Scriptures and we find ourselves much more convinced by the Catholic interpretation than by the Calvinist.
Since RB has already made personal reading of the Scripture his arbiter, he has nothing else to say "But, but, you're wrong because I disagree with you!"
And that is somehow supposed to be convincing.
At the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30) was Jesus talking to "dead men"? Or were Moses and Elijah resurrected specifically for that occasion?
Those poeple you're refering to, range from Lazarus to Mary. They are not dead as the testimony of God says. THe testimony of God is proof.
Not all of them, just like people in the protestant faiths aren't all Christians. It's a matter of what we do with Jesus. Is He in our hearts or not? Many Catholics ARE Christians for sure, I'm not saying they aren't, but many just go to church, like a lot of protestants.
No, you can't be a Christian unless you have asked Jesus Christ to be your saviour and Lord of your life. It's that easy.
So we know Elijah was physically present at the Transfiguration and we can only speculate as to whether Moses was physically present as well as spiritually present at the Transfiguration.
It would seem that he was, since to the Apostles his appearance conformed to that of Elijah and Jesus. I don't know the answer.
The early church was NOT Catholic. That evolved at a later date. The early church met in believers' homes and put their faith in Jesus only.
Only a minority of Christians would say this, in itself, is definitional of Christianity.
It specifically contradicts the beliefs of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed churches - which uniformly hold that an objective acknowledgment of Christ's Godhead and His position as the Son in the Trinity are essential for Christian belief as well (they would also insist on baptism, at least minimally as a sign, for inclusion in the Church).
For example, I have known people who acknowledge Christ as their savior and their lord, but see him as a man placed by God in that role. I think such individuals are definitionally excluded from Christianity.
No, it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to people like Moses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Timothy, etc. The catholics may have been the first ones to put it together but they didn't 'write it.'
Not really. Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr who died in 107 A.D. referred to the Church as Catholic while St. John the Apostle was still alive.
The early church met in believers' homes and put their faith in Jesus only.
The early Church did not meet only in believers' homes. The current Catholic Church often meets in believers' homes as well, by the way.
And the Catholic Church puts its faith in Jesus only.
Yeah, really. Just about what I said, too. It was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
What a complete jerk! Dissertations are in the Library of Congress. This one has 350 sources. You have no manners, and you don't know what you are talking about either.
No, we do it here in the frozen tundra of NYS as well. In fact, I once saw a refrigerator at a county fairground that said, "God's Little Money Maker." We can't drink, smoke, chew or date those who do, so we EAT.
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.