Catholic Church Says It Will Stop Charity Work If D.C. Passes Gay Marriage Law

[Havard]

I’d love to hear you explain why it is evil for a Church run charity to use its public funding to pay for health care of legally wedded spouses, but that is a whole other question. The issue at heand seems to be that you see the Church as being forced to do something. No one is forcing the Church to take public money in support of its charity work. The government just requires that those freely choosing to take public money must provide spousal benefits. The Church is free (and perhaps correct given its views) to refuse this public money. I suspect that other secular or religious groups who do not wish to discriminate against homosexuals will step up when the money previously distributed to Catholic charities becomes available, and the power play that the Church is trying to make to push DC away from gay marriage will likely fall flat.

You are wrong about what the Church is saying. You should read the bishop’s letter:

“Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services … Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same-sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services."

Full text of the letter here.

 

[fix]

I’d love to hear you explain why it is evil for a Church run charity to use its public funding to pay for health care of legally wedded spouses, but that is a whole other question.

If the Church must comply with an unjust law to continue doing their work how is that not evil?

The issue at heand seems to be that you see the Church as being forced to do something. No one is forcing the Church to take public money in support of its charity work. The government just requires that those freely choosing to take public money must provide spousal benefits. The Church is free (and perhaps correct given its views) to refuse this public money. I suspect that other secular or religious groups who do not wish to discriminate against homosexuals will step up when the money previously distributed to Catholic charities becomes available, and the power play that the Church is trying to make to push DC away from gay marriage will likely fall flat.

The power play is by the government, not the Church. The Church is happy to continue doing charitable work.

 

[Leela]

You are wrong about what the Church is saying. You should read the bishop’s letter:

“Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services … Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same-sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services."

Full text of the letter here.

I oculdn’t find the text at that link.

Could you explain what I said that was incorrect about what the Church is saying? I don’t think I even said anything about what the Chirch is saying.

 

[Havard]

I oculdn’t find the text at that link.

Could you explain what I said that was incorrect about what the Church is saying? I don’t think I even said anything about what the Chirch is saying.

I’m sorry, I confused you with an earlier poster! :doh2: The text of the letter can be found at that link in the November 14 blog entry, which is about a third of way down from the top.

 

[taylorc]

If they didn’t take tax payer dollars they wouldn’t be forced to do anything. I don’t get where the controversy is. They should go back to being a private charity rather than an arm of the government.

 

[Leela]

If the Church must comply with an unjust law to continue doing their work how is that not evil?

You have not explained how it would be unjust to require that organizations receiving public money cannot withhold spousal benefits to people who are legally married or what is so evil about providing healthcare to people who love someone of the same sex.

My understanding of the proposed legislation is that the Church is free to do its work, and its right to do its work will be Constitutionally protected as always, and it will even still be free to discrimate against homosexuals as it always has been. The government will not force the Church to marry homosexual couples or administer communion to homosexuals or to stop teaching bigotry toward homosexuals.

The difference is that once the law passes, the Church will not be able to receive public funds AND discriminate against homosexuals in the operations that are funded publically. It will only be able to discriminate against homosexuals in its non-publically-funded operations. What would be evil would be for the government of DC to support discrimination against gays through funding bigoted organizations.

This issue seems to raise a moral dilemma for the Church. Is discriminating against homosexuals so important that it should suspend cooperation in publically-funded social programs? Is the war on poverty not as important as the Church’s war on gays?

The Church appears to have decided that providing spousal benefits for employees which may be homosexual is a greater evil than suspending certain social programs for the poor. The upshot will be that the Church will be less and less relevant in a society that is becoming more and more tolerant and respectful of differences in race, social and economic status, gender, and sexual orientation.

Best,
Leela

 

[Havard]

Are you implying that the Church is intolerant or disrespectful?

I assume you are aware of the Church’s stand on homosexual relationships. You may not agree with it, but knowing that it is, you must acknowledge that it would be disrespectful for the Church to actively or passively enable that what it believes is harmful.

 

[Leela]

Are you implying that the Church is intolerant or disrespectful?

I assume you are aware of the Church’s stand on homosexual relationships.

The Church says that people should not engage in such behavior. But there are lots of other behaviors that people might engage in that the Church opposes as well. Should the Church deny spousal benefits to anyone who uses contraceptives as well?

You may not agree with it, but knowing that it is, you must acknowledge that it would be disrespectful for the Church to actively or passively enable that what it believes is harmful.

In the US people generally and genuinely believed at one time that their Christian religion supported slavery. If such people associated their bigotry with their religion, should I then not view them as intolerant or dispectful of blacks? It was still bigotry and still wrong regardless of how justifed they felt. By the same token, I don’t consider people who believe that their church teaches them to discriminate against homosexuals any less intolerant or disrespectful to homosexuals and to anyone who seeks a society where such discrimination is unacceptable than people who claim some other bases for their bigotry. That doesn’t mean I think they you Catholics bad people. I just means I think you are wrong and are hurting society by propogating such bigotry.

 

[tomarin]

The Church says that people should not engage in such behavior. But there are lots of other behaviors that people might engage in that the Church opposes as well. Should the Church deny spousal benefits to anyone who uses contraceptives as well?

You know, Leela, I think the whole premise of your past few posts is flawed insofar as you assume that sexual orientation is equivalent to a racial or ethnic grouping (and that therefore gay rights are equivalent to “civil rights.”) Perhaps they’re not.

 

[Havard]

The Church says that people should not engage in such behavior. But there are lots of other behaviors that people might engage in that the Church opposes as well. Should the Church deny spousal benefits to anyone who uses contraceptives as well?

In the US people generally and genuinely believed at one time that their Christian religion supported slavery. If such people associated their bigotry with their religion, should I then not view them as intolerant or dispectful of blacks? It was still bigotry and still wrong regardless of how justifed they felt. By the same token, I don’t consider people who believe that their church teaches them to discriminate against homosexuals any less intolerant or disrespectful to homosexuals and to anyone who seeks a society where such discrimination is unacceptable than people who claim some other bases for their bigotry. That doesn’t mean I think they you Catholics bad people. I just means I think you are wrong and are hurting society by propogating such bigotry.

The Church doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals, any homosexual can work for the Church. It discriminates against harmful behavior. Last I checked, the federal government discriminates against harmful behavior too.

As to the contraceptive argument, it’s completely off-topic. Employers are presented with homosexual relationships via their applications for health care. They are not presented with contraceptive use, and even if they were, contraceptive use is certainly not grounds for the Church to declare a marriage null.

 

[fix]

You have not explained how it would be unjust to require that organizations receiving public money cannot withhold spousal benefits to people who are legally married or what is so evil about providing healthcare to people who love someone of the same sex.

An unjust law does not make immoral become moral simply because the law allows it. Why should the Church not have an exemption from such a law?

My understanding of the proposed legislation is that the Church is free to do its work, and its right to do its work will be Constitutionally protected as always, and it will even still be free to discrimate against homosexuals as it always has been. The government will not force the Church to marry homosexual couples or administer communion to homosexuals or to stop teaching bigotry toward homosexuals.

The Church does not unjustly discriminate nor is She a bigot. The state wants to impose an unjust law.

The difference is that once the law passes, the Church will not be able to receive public funds AND discriminate against homosexuals in the operations that are funded publically. It will only be able to discriminate against homosexuals in its non-publically-funded operations. What would be evil would be for the government of DC to support discrimination against gays through funding bigoted organizations.

There is no unjust discrimination in refusing to take part in seriously immoral arrangements.

This issue seems to raise a moral dilemma for the Church. Is discriminating against homosexuals so important that it should suspend cooperation in publically-funded social programs? Is the war on poverty not as important as the Church’s war on gays?

There is no right to immoral behavior. There is no unjust discrimination. The only unjust discrimination is against Catholic organizations who are attempted to be forced to act immorally to appease the moral relativists.

The Church appears to have decided that providing spousal benefits for employees which may be homosexual is a greater evil than suspending certain social programs for the poor. The upshot will be that the Church will be less and less relevant in a society that is becoming more and more tolerant and respectful of differences in race, social and economic status, gender, and sexual orientation.

The Church does not illicitly cooperate with evil for a perceived greater good. IOW, the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Brendan]

This issue seems to raise a moral dilemma for the Church. Is discriminating against homosexuals so important that it should suspend cooperation in publically-funded social programs? Is the war on poverty not as important as the Church’s war on gays?

There is no moral dilema, as one, there is no discrimination. The Church provides benefits to married couples. Since there can be no marriage between persons of the same gender, there is no discrimnation involved.

Also, there is no war on gays. The Church loves those who are afflicted with homosexual tendencies. In fact, the Church loves them enought to help them overcome sinful tendencies and live celebate lives.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The Church says that people should not engage in such behavior. But there are lots of other behaviors that people might engage in that the Church opposes as well. Should the Church deny spousal benefits to anyone who uses contraceptives as well?

I think a more analogous situation would occur if a city required anyone receiving municipal funds to provide insurance that includes contraceptives and abortion. If a group said, in essence, we find this immoral and cannot provide this type of insurance, they would then withdraw from contracting with the city to provide services.

As in this case, the city would be able to claim that they were providing something they found to be a societal good – reproductive rights or benefits for same-sex partners – but they would be giving up the benefits that the particular agency could provide. (I assume the city gave funds to church groups because the groups provide the services needed efficiently and at a low cost. So the city gives up the efficiency but placates those who want the particular benefits.)

 

[Leela]

There is no moral dilema, as one, there is no discrimination. The Church provides benefits to married couples. Since there can be no marriage between persons of the same gender, there is no discrimnation involved.

Right. Discriminating against gay marriages is not discrimination because it is not really marriage. Just like slavery was not evil because the slave owners knew that blacks were not really human.

 

[Leela]

An unjust law does not make immoral become moral simply because the law allows it. Why should the Church not have an exemption from such a law?

Should Chistian Scientists be free to refuse their children medical treatment?

The Church does not unjustly discriminate nor is She a bigot. The state wants to impose an unjust law.

You just keep saying that the law is unjust without explaining why it is unjust.

There is no unjust discrimination in refusing to take part in seriously immoral arrangements.

So it is just discrimination?

There is no right to immoral behavior.

Actually, there is. The Court has ruled that there is a right to privacy and that lawmakers cannot make any law on the grounds that a given behavior is immoral. See “sodomy laws.”

There is no unjust discrimination. The only unjust discrimination is against Catholic organizations who are attempted to be forced to act immorally to appease the moral relativists.

Now it seems clear that you just don’t know what the word “discrimination” means. And “moral relativist” for you just seems to be “anyone who disagrees with me.”

 

[Leela]

I think a more analogous situation would occur if a city required anyone receiving municipal funds to provide insurance that includes contraceptives and abortion. If a group said, in essence, we find this immoral and cannot provide this type of insurance, they would then withdraw from contracting with the city to provide services.

As in this case, the city would be able to claim that they were providing something they found to be a societal good – reproductive rights or benefits for same-sex partners – but they would be giving up the benefits that the particular agency could provide. (I assume the city gave funds to church groups because the groups provide the services needed efficiently and at a low cost. So the city gives up the efficiency but placates those who want the particular benefits.)

I think this analogy is fine and the solution would be the same. The Church would then likely opt to not receive public money, but it would not be “forced” to do so. It would be a free choice.

 

[Stylites]

Now it seems clear that you just don’t know what the word “discrimination” means.

There is no discrimination at all. Men and women who suffer from SSA can overcome their afflictions and have morally-licit heterosexual relations. They can get married if they want to.

 

[Leela]

You know, Leela, I think the whole premise of your past few posts is flawed insofar as you assume that sexual orientation is equivalent to a racial or ethnic grouping (and that therefore gay rights are equivalent to “civil rights.”) Perhaps they’re not.

I am well-aware that we disagree with regard to the rights of people to love whomever they love. The Church’s war on gays has been well publicized.

 

[Leela]

There is no discrimination at all. Men and women who suffer from SSA can overcome their afflictions and have morally-licit heterosexual relations. They can get married if they want to.

Are you speaking from experience here?

Maybe you can demonstrate how easy it is to change a preference. Start with something simple. See if you can, say, make yourself prefer chocolate if you already prefer vanilla or vice-versa.

 

[Stylites]

Are you speaking from experience here?

Maybe you can demonstrate how easy it is to change a preference. Start with something simple. See if you can, say, make yourself prefer chocolate if you already prefer vanilla or vice-versa.

Just because someone ‘prefers’ something doesn’t make it good or right. Perhaps someone has a hormonal problem with his temper and his fists start flying at any little thing. Does the fact that he has a hormonal problem forgive his lashing out? No. It just means that he has to work harder than the rest of us to overcome that fault or that failing.

Or do the secularists just wring their hands and declare that he has the ‘temper gene’, that he has no control of his actions, that he has no free will and is just a brute, that it would be ‘discrimination’ and ‘unfair’ to not allow him to lose his temper and to do whatever his body wants him to do?