An update to the Catholic Charities Decision in California

I had forgotten to mention that the vote was 6 to 1. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, writing that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if it excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.

If you recall, Justice Brown was nominated by President Bush last October to fill a vacancy on the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC. This nomination was met with fierce opposition by Democratic leadership not because she is black or a woman but because of her 'conservative' views. Ted Kennedy went so far as to call Bush's nominees "Neanderthals".

Many have wondered whether Catholic Charities is actually 'Catholic' at all. Numerous stories and articles abound about some of the chapters' failures to adhere to Catholic moral teaching. Certainly some are faithful to Christ and His Church. This fidelity may be due to episcopal leadership, but I can't say for sure.

One has to wonder, however, what kind of agenda is really being pushed, though. When one looks at the Catholic Resources links at Catholic Charities USA, for instance, one will find only three Catholic Resources:

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops/The United States Catholic Conference

The National Catholic Reporter

Salt of the Earth

Two of these links (National Catholic Reporter and Salt of the Earth) are given a "DANGER" rating by Catholic Culture (formerly PetersNet) for Fidelity.

Catholic Culture describes the "DANGER" rating as follows:

The site tends toward disobedience to ecclesiastical authority, schism or heresy. There is repeated emphasis on views which contradict or undermine either the teachings of the Church or her disciplinary authority.

The review for National Catholic Reporter is here.
And the review for Salt of the Earth is here.

But this is not all, and here, in The Mercury News, we find some truth in the claims that some Catholic Charities organizations do NOT adhere to the teachings of the Church.

``We aren't going to do anything different,'' said Maribel Andonian, the spokeswoman for Catholic Charities of San Jose.

Huh? That's because the San Jose group already was offering contraceptive prescription benefits before the 2000 state law. It was a matter of competitive edge, Andonian said. Not religious dogma. (my emphasis)
...
Catholics have differing viewpoints on contraception, evidenced by Catholics for Choice, which filed a brief siding with the state. Even the spokesman for Catholic Charities of California, Kevin Eckery, has acknowledged the differing views in the network.

Catholics can not have 'differing viewpoints' on artificial contraception if they wish to remain Catholics. And Catholics for Choice is not a Catholic group.

And where is the Bishop of San Jose in all of this? Isn't he busy teaching Catholics that the Gospels are "not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate"?

This court ruling is an issue which will require bold action on the part of the Bishops of California.

Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association, reacting against the California decision, said,
"Faith-based organizations must retain the freedom to follow religious and ethical beliefs in matters regarding issues such as birth control.

"On one hand, they (the courts) fight laws that would allow faith-based organizations to restrict hiring to those who follow its religious teachings. Then on the other hand, as soon a faith-based organizations hires others, they say it's no longer a faith-based organization and loses religious and conscience freedoms.

"The hypocrisy is stunning, but not surprising, given abortion activists' drive to force their political agenda on everyone who disagrees with their views."
(Partial excerpt from Zenit)