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

[Corki]

Did Jesus not heal sinners? Then it would seem no problem to provide health benefits to heterosexual couples living together out of wedlock or to homosexual partnerships.

Yes, but always with the admonition to “go and sin no more”. Jesus never enabled sin. You don’t see Him, for example, saving the life of the woman being stoned and then telling her to go and keep committing adultery.

And again, this isn’t about the employees themselves. Homosexual or heterosexual, sinners or not, they get the same benefits. It’s only about who they get to claim as dependants.

 

[Leela]

Yes, but always with the admonition to “go and sin no more”. Jesus never enabled sin. You don’t see Him, for example, saving the life of the woman being stoned and then telling her to go and keep committing adultery.

Well sure he would want them to not sin anymore, but the fact that they were sinners did not stop him from offering health care.

(By the way, do you think the “go and sin no more” folks stopped sinning? If the sinners that Jesus associated with did generally repent, the Jewish establishment would have loved him rather than conspiring to have him killed.)

And again, this isn’t about the employees themselves. Homosexual or heterosexual, sinners or not, they get the same benefits. It’s only about who they get to claim as dependants.

Right, and I’m trying to understand what would be wrong with allowing homosexual dependents to receive health care.

 

[Corki]

Right, and I’m trying to understand what would be wrong with allowing homosexual dependents to receive health care.

Again, it has nothing to do with the dependants being homosexual. It has to do with not recognizing a same-sex simulated marriage as creating a dependant. No matter how you try to characterize this as some kind of Church attack on homosexuality, it isn’t.

 

[Havard]

Adding to what Corki said:

“But the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying to his disciples: Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick. I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.” - Luke 5:30-32

 

[Havard]

Well sure he would want them to not sin anymore, but the fact that they were sinners did not stop him from offering health care.

But were they penitent sinners?

 

[Leela]

Again, it has nothing to do with the dependants being homosexual. It has to do with not recognizing a same-sex simulated marriage as creating a dependant. No matter how you try to characterize this as some kind of Church attack on homosexuality, it isn’t.

I’m afraid I still see it that way.

Why would the Church have any problem with recognizing a homosexual partner as a dependent? That doesn’t imply any moral sanction for homosexual relationships as true marriage. It is just acknowledging a fact about an employee’s situation. I think the problem is that the Church sees it as morally sanctioning homosexual behavior rather than as acknowledging the fact of interdependency of homosexual couples and would deny such sinners health care as a moral admonishment about the evil of homosexuality.

 

[Havard]

I’m afraid I still see it that way.

Why would the Church have any problem with recognizing a homosexual partner as a dependent? That doesn’t imply any moral sanction for homosexual relationships as true marriage. It is just acknowledging a fact about an employee’s situation. I think the problem is that the Church sees it as morally sanctioning homosexual behavior rather than as acknowledging the fact of interdependency of homosexual couples and would deny such sinners health care as a moral admonishment about the evil of homosexuality.

With regard to insurance coverage, dependents are children under 18-30, depending on the state. Spouses are covered as spouses, or partners of a ‘civil union’ in some states.

 

[Leela]

With regard to insurance coverage, dependents are children under 18-30, depending on the state.

My point is that words like “spouse” or “dependent” are beside the point. I understand that the Catholic Church is concerned about the word “marriage” and does not want to apply it to homosexual couples. But that still does not explain why the Catholic Church thinks it would be immoral to extend health care benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual employees. How could offering health care to someone be immoral?

The answer I think is that the Church would view offering benefits to the domestic partners of homosexuals to be legitimizing homosexuality, but Jesus never took the view that healing a sinner legitimized the sin.

 

[Havard]

My point is that words like “spouse” or “dependent” are beside the point. I understand that the Catholic Church is concerned about the word “marriage” and does not want to apply it to homosexual couples. But that still does not explain why the Catholic Church thinks it would be immoral to extend health care benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual employees. How could offering health care to someone be immoral?

The answer I think is that the Church would view offering benefits to the domestic partners of homosexuals to be legitimizing homosexuality, but Jesus never took the view that healing a sinner legitimized the sin.

The basis by which people get coverage is entirely relevant, because people are excluded from it all the time. My friend’s mother is sick, and she doesn’t have insurance, and my friend can’t extend his to her, even if he gets a job with the Catholic Church!. Is that fair? Why is it only married partners and children of a certain age? If you don’t like that system, what standard do we allow for extending coverage? What makes one relationship more important than another?

I have my own ideas, but I’d like to hear yours!

 

[Leela]

The basis by which people get coverage is entirely relevant, because people are excluded from it all the time. My friend’s mother is sick, and she doesn’t have insurance, and my friend can’t extend his to her, even if he gets a job with the Catholic Church!. Is that fair? Why is it only married partners and children of a certain age? If you don’t like that system, what standard do we allow for extending coverage? What makes one relationship more important than another?

I have my own ideas, but I’d like to hear yours!

Healthcare benefits could be extended to people in a number of ways. the issue here is not what is the best way. The issue here is that the if the legislature decides that health care benefits must be extended to people the city government considers to be married, the Church need not also consider the same people married in the Christian sense of the term to extend benefits to these people who are married in the legal sense. It doesn’t have to view following the law as legitimizing gay marriage any more than Jesus’s healing of sinners was an endorsement of sin.

I understand that the Catholic Church is concerned about the word “marriage” and does not want to apply it to homosexual couples, but it would not be forced to endorse these marriages as real marriages. It would just have to extend healthcare benefits to homosexuals who have a certain legal designation. If the Church thought it was unfair to offer benefits to homosexual cohabitators but not heterosexual cohabitators it could do that as well.

How could offering health care to someone be immoral? The answer I think is that it isn’t, and that the Church views offering benefits to the domestic partners of homosexuals to be legitimizing homosexuality, but Jesus never took the view that healing a sinner legitimized the sin.

Best,
Leela