12 July 2011

Illinois begins the Open Persecution of Catholics

Think that is a bit dramatic?  I don't.  Obviously the opening salvo by the monolithic, politically-correct, tolerant State against the inconvenient Truth that is the Catholic Church is not an earth-shaking one.  It starts like this.  Incrementalism is the strategy.


Jack Smith at the Catholic Key has a good insight on this story at his blog.

15 comments:

TLMer said...

RealCatholicTV ran a piece recently that spoke about the problems we will face from the homosexual culture: http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/0/aLC-g9s_jUg . Worth a look.

Peggy said...

Thanks for the coverage. Catholic Key did a good job. The claims that adoptions and foster care would not be affected were peddled by the gay movement groups.

It would sure be nice if Pat Quinn would get an earful and some canonical consequences from Card. George. One can dream, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

Help me out here. How does this new law "openly persecute" Catholics?

Secondly, what happens in the next several stages of your incrementalistic vision? I would hate to think that it somehow involves taking up arms and repairing to north St Louis to protect all the 13 year old girls that are pregnant.

Anonymous said...

I see no persecution of the Catholics here. Given the fact that Catholic Charities (CC) has refused to abide by regulations, by the law, the decision by Illinois Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) to cancel contracts with Catholic Charities is quite logical - and frankly the ONLY response that state officials could make in response to CC’s refusal to follow established guidelines.

I see no attack by the state of Illinois on CC’s right to refuse a gay couple to act as foster parents because of the Church’s stand against homosexuality. Illinois has NOT forced CC to abide by the state law. You (meaning Catholic Charities) have the right to refuse to participate in the foster care program on moral grounds. Illinois has the right, the responsibility actually, to cancel CC’s contract because of non-compliance with the law. No ‘persecution’, no hidden agenda. Both parties acted within their respective rights and responsibilities.

No strike. No foul.

What I DO suspect: Perhaps the righteous indignation of Catholic Charities is motivated less by the feeling of persection by the state , and more so by the fact that CC is losing a bundle of state money by the cancellation of it’s contract by DCFS.

Now, to change the direction for just a second:

Timman I’ve grown to LOVE this blogsite. It has become one of the few commentaries that make me lose a stitch every day, laughing at you and your minions of mirth. So I say this with the greatest of grudging respect:

I’m worried about you, T.

Your commentaries on this incident and your recent blogs concerning hidden meanings in road signs, Abraham Lincoln’s Marxist (excuse me, Hegelian), alter-ego and his (it’s?) conspiracy to destroy America, your delusion, (sorry T. I call it as I see it) that America would be better served under a Papist monarchy; well…….

may I respectfully suggest that, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to check your current med dosage. You’re drifting a little far out there in the ethers, boy!

in peace and wahoo

-cdg

thetimman said...

Wow, alliterative minions. Pretty cool.

Methodist Jim said...

Update: A Sangamon County judge granted an injunction prohibiting the state of Illinois from dropping its foster care contracts in Springfield, Peoria, and Joliet pending a hearing in August. State official cited as saying IL DCFS will maintain "status quo" on all contracts, including Belleville's, until that hearing. Story at stltoday . . .
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_5542c130-35c7-5d77-95c1-990f7d6ffa52.html

StGuyFawkes said...

Dear cdg,

The key words and phrases in Tim's post were "starts like this", "incrementalism" and "opening salvo."

You are not reading him. You are just reacting.

Tim means to say that this is emphatically NOT a case of persecution, but rather a warm up pitch. His claim is a more deft and subtle one than you are crediting him.

His worry doesn't come from paranoia. It comes from a well read training in history and economics.

Here's an aside: As a technique of polemic, it's always best to read closely and (since you are Catholic) study the generous method of Aquinas. Always give your adversary's argument the best possible reading.

Thereby, if your own argument is the better it will finally be all the more convincing since you haven't exagerated his claims in order to knock down a straw man.

Tim's argument, although it short changes us with enthymeme, becomes a logical proof if rendered as such:

1.) Major Premise: In an ever expanding welfare state all functions of civil society (education, medicine, charity et al.) become wards of the state; this is because the state monopolizes the cash supply through taxation until no "independant" organ of society can function without government support, or as in this case "contacts."

(You admirably touched on this when you isolated Catholic Charities' outrage as an effect of a loss of cash flow.)

2.) Minor Premise: Independant Religious charities, should they wish to continue without government "contracts" will be forced to drain the pockets of religious supporters, thereby making the original creators of the charities less able to use their private capital to support other forms of religious engagement with society.

3.) Conclusion: The overall religious effect on society dwindles through penury. And the institutions of civil society all of which were originally religious (think of hospitals and education) will all of necessity die, or become completely secular.

Finally, religious institutions having little role in society must all come to be seen as vestigial remnants of a discarded past. THey will either hide in the niches and interstices of the quaint, that is become some Catholic version of an "Amish Villages", or they will be cast aside as inhibitors of "progress" as they struggle, penniless, to continue a public role.

It's soon after this last stage that state persecution and the program to "ecraser l'infame" (Voltaire) begins.

This was exactly what happened in the French Revolution and all her descendants in Russia, Spain, Germany and Mexico.

You could look it up.

Finally, the bit about the road signs was a joke directed against ME! Tim wasn't serious! The interest Marxists took in the Civil War and Lincoln is well documented, (although the naming of the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade" was a trope inspired by CPUSA chariman Earl Browder and not an attempt to Communize Abe.) As for Hapsburg monarchs, you can't really understand limited government unless you understand the actual workings of monarchies. Read the Illiad, Odyssey and the history surrounding the Magna Carta. Monarchy in some ways insures more freedom than modern liberal government.

St. Guy

Anonymous said...

NOTE: I used more than my allocated characters, so this is
PART ONE of TWO POSTS

Mr.guy-
I don't have much time to answer all your claims, so I'll just touch a few:

"The key words and phrases in Tim's post were "starts like this", "incrementalism" and "opening salvo." You are not reading him. You are just reacting." - Mr.guy

Thank you, Mr. guy for interpreting Timman’s words. Given you boys’ higher level of spiritual/intellectual attainment I appreciate your giving me a heads-up as to what he MEANS, as opposed to what he said.

"Tim means to say that this is emphatically NOT a case of persecution, but rather a warm up pitch. His claim is a more deft and subtle one than you are crediting him." - Mr.guy

Subtlety isn’t one of my strong points, but I’ll try to understand: Big T’s argument is a claim anticipating the elevation of ‘persecution’ towards the Catholic Church - the ‘slippery slope’ argument. As such, it IS a claim of persecution. The only difference is degree of persecution. The slide starts with a slip, and then you’re zippin’ down that Slip-n-Slide. Just because it’s the ‘first salvo’, it doesn’t mean the war hasn’t yet started. Mixing metaphors here, but I’m sure you get the gist.

"His worry doesn't come from paranoia." - Mr.guy

Not paranoia so much as perhaps an unfortunate mismatch in the ratio of medication to Chartreuse.

"It comes from a well read training in history and economics." - Mr.guy

That’s what prompted the paranoia? Now THAT I can understand.

"Here's an aside: As a technique of polemic, it's always best to read closely and (since you are Catholic)..."

ah, ah…you’re making hazy conclusions based on faulty assumptions! - cdg

"...study the generous method of Aquinas. Always give your adversary's argument the best possible reading." - Mr.guy

Point taken. With a glass of chartreuse, perhaps?

"Thereby, if your own argument is the better it will finally be all the more convincing since you haven't exagerated (sic) his claims in order to knock down a straw man." - Mr.guy

END of PART ONE
cdg

Anonymous said...

CONTINUE PART TWO OF THREE POSTS

NOTE: I skipped this part for now. I realize that this is SERIOUS STUFF for you, Mr. guy, and it deserves a relatively serious reply, to be posted later. - cdg

"Minor Premise: Independant Religious charities, should they wish to continue without government "contracts" will be forced to drain the pockets of religious supporters, thereby making the original creators of the charities less able to use their private capital to support other forms of religious engagement with society." - Mr.guy

I question the premise, but will reply later in a more (relatively) serious post.

So you are saying the survival of Catholic Charity depends upon the financial largesse of the state? And if that funding is severed, the Catholic Church will not be able to support itself except as another roadside attraction?
I’m confused Aren’t YOU the guys that are arguing for less government involvement in your religious affairs, and your life in general? If so, you’ve got a circular argument going, here.

Or is it that you want MORE religious involvement in government affairs, with the big R being the dominant player and government taking the submissive role in the ‘partnership’ - a theocracy?

If that is you boys’ position I can only offer as an existant retort the realities of modern day theocratic governments, Iran, and to a lesser degree Saudi Arabia. “Bring on the burquaas and stoning”.
I’ll pass, thank you.

"Conclusion: The overall religious effect on society dwindles through penury." - Mr.guy

Overall religious effect on society? Are we talking about the countless little squabbles that the Holy Roman Church had a hand in throughout European history in an effort to establish Papal dominion, killing millions of people in the process? Ex: the Religious Wars in France, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Irish ‘Troubles’.

Should we consider the ‘convert or die’ program that the Catholic Church presented to the indigenous peoples of the New World? If so, then…yeah… bring on the dwindle!

"And the institutions of civil society all of which were originally religious (think of hospitals and education) will all of necessity die, or become completely secular." - Mr.guy

The charism of medical care already has become secular because of one thing: profit motive. Virtually all not-for-profit hospitals, Catholic hospitals included, have sold out to private health care organizations or have changed their mission from caring for people to caring about the bottom line on their corporate earnings statements. Medical care in America is now completely secular. Ayn Rand strikes again.

Education: Another subject for another day. But overall, better that education is secular, (i.e: open inquiry) than left to the ministrations of religious organizations with a Biblical (or Quranic or Confucian, or whatever) axe to grind. Case in point: Islamic madrasssas, Bob Jones University, Robert Welch U. – all paragons of liberal (in the open-mind sense) inquiry? I think not.

And if you’re arguing for that old-time Catholic religion - which one? Jesuit? Dominican? Benedictine? Marianist? Big differences that you boys have been arguing for centuries.

note; Sorry. Got kicked again for using too many words. Will continue on a THIRD post. (ugh)
-cdg

Anonymous said...

NOTE; THIRD of THREE POSTS (i hope!)
to pick up what's left of this thread....

"Finally, religious institutions having little role in society must all come to be seen as vestigial remnants of a discarded past. THey will either hide in the niches and interstices of the quaint, that is become some Catholic version of an "Amish Villages", or they will be cast aside as inhibitors of "progress" as they struggle, penniless, to continue a public role." - Mr.guy

I like this statement! Nice imagery. Tres’ bien!

In reply:
A. See ‘Another Roadside Attraction’ above.
B. The Catholic Church will NEVER be ‘penniless’. Too many pieces of gold in the Vatican’s attics!

"It's soon after this last stage that state persecution and the program to "ecraser l'infame" (Voltaire) begins." - Mr.guy


Jumping to conclusions Mr.guy!
In counter to your inconclusive ‘reign of terror’ endgame, I would submit another inconclusive example: the Holy Inquisition. THAT little dandy, if the memory of high school history class is still lodged up there in my head, was served up by your Ultimate Monarchy, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Now THAT was a ‘reign of terror’ that lit up all of Europe- one heretic at a time!


"This was exactly what happened in the French Revolution and all her descendants in Russia, Spain, Germany and Mexico. You could look it up." - Mr.guy


okay.
French Revoltion: peasantry against a corrupt, self-indulgent Catholic monarchy

Russian Revolution: peasantry against a corrupted, seriously inbred Russian Orthodox monarchy

Spanish Revolution 1820: French Bourbon monarchists (Catholic) against a seriously inept, inbred and corrupted Catholic monarchy

Spanish Revolution 1868: military against a seriously inept, inbred and corrupted Catholic monarchy

Spanish Revolution 1936: assorted Socialists/anarchist/Communists against a seriously inept, inbred and corrupted constitutional monarchy (mostly Catholic)

Germany 1848: assorted Socialists/anarchist/Communists/middle class against a confederation of monarchies within the former Holy Roman (Catholic again)Empire

Mexican Revolution 1916: assorted Socialists/anarchist/Communists/peasantry against a rather confusing collection of, French,& Prussian emperors, corrupted puppet presidents… and the Catholic Church, (a rather wealthy owner of confiscated indigenous properties).


"Finally, the bit about the road signs was a joke directed against ME! Tim wasn't serious!" - Mr.guy

Mr.guy...uh...I DO understand the concept of humor...I think.

"... As for Hapsburg monarchs, you can't really understand limited government unless you understand the actual workings of monarchies. Read the Illiad, Odyssey and the history surrounding the Magna Carta. Monarchy in some ways insures more freedom than modern liberal government." - Mr.guy

The Illiad: Huh? Lost me there

The Odyssey: Huh? Lost me here, too

The Magna Carta? Huh?
Again , if my high school memory serves me, the Magna Carta was the prototype for modern constitutional self-government. The document was created as a result of grievances by his subject nobility against King John stemming from John-boy’s excessive taxation and appropriation of properties. How does this square with your claim that monarchies insure more freedom than ‘modern liberal government’?

Something to remember: the end result of that little ‘letter to the editor’ is today’s British Parliament – an institution that, if memory serves correctly, you wanna’ blow up!.


We’ll talk seriously later. Right now, Mom says I have to go to bed.

-in peace and wahoo

cdg

thetimman said...

Wow, cdg, I thought I was wordy! I posted your comments, but I couldn't make it through them. You and St. Guy will have to resign yourselves to a dialog.

But you like dialog, yes?

StGuyFawkes said...

Dear Tim, cdg et alios,

I will answer Mr cdg but it will take a bottle of chartreuse to fortify me before I wade into all three posts.

In the meantime does anyone else want to jump in and explicate the dangers of the welfare state to the independant institutions of civil society? I fear that I'm not clear in my renderings and someone else might do better.

In the meantime I will try.

Let me begin by saying that most conservative and traditional Catholics favor a limited state with limited powers of taxation so that individual citizens are free to support with their charity institutions which reflect their religious and humanitarian visions.

My point, and Tim's, is that in the context of the modern liberal welfare state -- a term which describes every Western democracy -- the withdrawal of contracts, or government support, is the equivalent of withdrawing life support, and, whether intended deliberately or not, this withdrawal destroys the practical ability of a religion to have a social mission.

In your saying that we are on a "slippery slope" you are defining the problem well.

The only alternative for thoughtful Catholics who wish to not end at the rocky bottom of the welfare state slope is to end the welfare state and vote for Ron Paul, or make the welfare state a partner of the Church.

Either will work.

Aristotole tells us with Aquinas that any regime can be just however each regime presents intrinsic difficulties. Thus the Church is by turns monarchist or democratic depending on which regime best protects the higher aims of mankind which are identical to Hers.

As a stray comment let me say that I didn't know you were not Catholic. IF you are not why do you spend so much time on this Catholic blog? This is a question for your personal reflection and is in fact none of my business but you might ask it of yourself.


St. Guy

Anonymous said...

Mr.guy-

Call me cdg...please. Adding the 'MR' moniker endues me with a gravitas that is neither deserved, nor desired.

Thanks!

-cdg


a lagniappe:
"As a stray comment let me say that I didn't know you were not Catholic. IF you are not why do you spend so much time on this Catholic blog?" - Mr.guy

Mr.Guy, once again you leap off the conclusion cliff using a faulty parachute!

Perhaps someday I'll spill the beans**...

...over a bottle of Chartreuse!

-in peace & wahoo


**(i really DO need to get a handle on this mixed metaphor thing.)

dulac90 said...

Yes, the Church relies on benefactors to support its charitable efforts. There should be no shame in admitting that money is required. The State, however, usurps an individual's freedom to choose what charities he will support, at least partially. Taxation forcibly takes resources from the individual and directs them to what the State deems worthy of support (or away from what the Sate deems unworthy). Even if a majority agrees, this arrangement takes free choice from the individual by reducing his ability to determine who or what will benefit from the fruits of his labor.

The same extends to any "stimulus" the State promotes. By forcing me to support the auto industry, or a particular research study, or a specific road project, my ability to support the industries of my choice is diminished. It's the classic Broken Window story of economics.

The State chooses the winners and losers.

StGuyFawkes said...

dulac90,

Well put! I'd add that an increasingly powerful and tax glutted welfare state, such as ours, eventually becomes the SOLE benefactor of any consequence in civil society; and, thus the welfare state's choice to de-fund a civil institution, even if supported by a majority, becomes a form of descrimination by necessity.

Although the descrimination is not malicious it does prepare the ground for the eventual bankrupting of the minority institution, and the marginalization of the particular idealistic visions which inspire it.