D.C. Archdiocese Forced to Drop Coverage for Spouses over Same-Sex "Marriage"

[scott122]

The Washington DC office of Catholic Charities will drop health-care coverage for the spouses of its employees, in order to avoid clashing with a new law that requires equal treatment of same-sex couples. Officials for the archdiocesan agency chose to change their health-care plan for employees rather than expanding the definition of “spouse” to allow for the inclusion of a same-sex partner.

This seems to be committing a greater evil in order to avoid committing a lesser evil. I wonder how many true spouses will now NOT have health care so that this Christian Charity can avoid giving health care to a few same-sex “spouses.”

This flies in the face of what both “Catholic” and “Charity” mean.

 

[Pro_Life_News]

By Thaddeus M. BaklinskiWASHINGTON, DC, March 2, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Catholic Charities of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has been forced to amend the health care coverage of it employees in order to avoid giving benefits to same-sex partners, as a result of the implementation of…

Full article…

 

[the_phoenix]

Don’t blame Catholic Charities for this one.
Blame the gay activists who like to
pretend there’s such a thing as
“homosexual marriage” and who want to
force others to accept that decadent lifestyle
against their conscience
and the Teachings of the Catholic Church.
Those gay activists are truly shameful
in forcing their immorality on others.

 

[St_Francis]

And blame the DC Council who passed the law, even tho CC tried to talk to them about it…

 

[Inhimthroughher]

A better question is “Why are practicing homosexuals even working at Catholic Charities?”

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Don’t blame Catholic Charities for this one.
Blame the gay activists who like to
pretend there’s such a thing as
“homosexual marriage” and who want to
force others to accept that decadent lifestyle
against their conscience
and the Teachings of the Catholic Church.
Those gay activists are truly shameful
in forcing their immorality on others.

I think it’s absolutely selfish of CC to do this. Not only are they denying coverage to employees, but they ARE discriminating. No two ways about it. It’s the same as closing the adoption agency because they would have to let homosexuals adopt. It’s not doing those children any good, and it’s hurting them. They were not “Forced” to discontinue coverage, but they CHOSE to. It’s wrong. I thought the Church was welcoming to ALL, not just some. Giving someone healthcare doesn’t mean you have to accept them, your just protecting people, which is what they should be doing in the first place. Why is there a litmus test for charity? Do they deny open homosexuals charity as well?

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Washington DC office of Catholic Charities will drop health-care coverage for the spouses of its employees, in order to avoid clashing with a new law that requires equal treatment of same-sex couples. Officials for the archdiocesan agency chose to change their health-care plan for employees rather than expanding the definition of “spouse” to allow for the inclusion of a same-sex partner.

This seems to be committing a greater evil in order to avoid committing a lesser evil. I wonder how many true spouses will now NOT have health care so that this Christian Charity can avoid giving health care to a few same-sex “spouses.”

This flies in the face of what both “Catholic” and “Charity” mean.

I think it’s absolutely selfish of CC to do this. Not only are they denying coverage to employees, but they ARE discriminating. No two ways about it. It’s the same as closing the adoption agency because they would have to let homosexuals adopt. It’s not doing those children any good, and it’s hurting them. They were not “Forced” to discontinue coverage, but they CHOSE to. It’s wrong. I thought the Church was welcoming to ALL, not just some. Giving someone healthcare doesn’t mean you have to accept them, your just protecting people, which is what they should be doing in the first place. Why is there a litmus test for charity? Do they deny open homosexuals charity as well?

I disagree. The ends does not justify the means. One can not perform an evil act because one or more of it’s side effects will result in a good act. That is basic biblical teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

I think it’s absolutely selfish of CC to do this. Not only are they denying coverage to employees, but they ARE discriminating. No two ways about it. It’s the same as closing the adoption agency because they would have to let homosexuals adopt. It’s not doing those children any good, and it’s hurting them. They were not “Forced” to discontinue coverage, but they CHOSE to. It’s wrong. I thought the Church was welcoming to ALL, not just some. Giving someone healthcare doesn’t mean you have to accept them, your just protecting people, which is what they should be doing in the first place. Why is there a litmus test for charity? Do they deny open homosexuals charity as well?

It is not selfish of the Church to do this! It is selfish of the homosexuals who lobbied for these so-called “rights.”

No one has a “right” to adopt a child; and the Church would be reneging on its responsibility to find proper homes for children in need of adoption were it to give into these laws.

In the same way, the Church cannot enable people in committing sin, nor acknowledge that as somehow… unsinful. It is not selfish of the *Church *to follow God’s laws; it is selfish of those who promote this sort of thing so they can get what they want, which is societal recognition of their sin as normal and equal to an actual marriage.

 

[St_Francis]

A better question is “Why are practicing homosexuals even working at Catholic Charities?”

Perhaps because the CC doesn’t enquire into people’s sex lives when hiring?

 

[Eris_Discordia]

It is not selfish of the Church to do this! It is selfish of the homosexuals who lobbied for these so-called “rights.”

No one has a “right” to adopt a child; and the Church would be reneging on its responsibility to find proper homes for children in need of adoption were it to give into these laws.

In the same way, the Church cannot enable people in committing sin, nor acknowledge that as somehow… unsinful. It is not selfish of the *Church *to follow God’s laws; it is selfish of those who promote this sort of thing so they can get what they want, which is societal recognition of their sin as normal and equal to an actual marriage.

But the church is still denying to help people. It’s still wrong. Also, lot of homosexual couples are still able to give loving homes. If I was an older kid up for adoption, I know I wouldn’t care about who adopted me, as long as they were loving.

 

[Marlow]

If this is true, it’s a shame, but I agree with the decision. There must be ramifications to same sex legislation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But the church is still denying to help people. It’s still wrong. Also, lot of homosexual couples are still able to give loving homes. If I was an older kid up for adoption, I know I wouldn’t care about who adopted me, as long as they were loving.

Aa I said before, the end does not justify the means. One can not do an evil act even if good will result. That is biblical teaching.

 

[scott122]

“One can not do an evil act even if good will result.”

How is giving health-care to someone evil? The true evil is denying health care to anyone. Health-care is a neutral act; it’s not evil to give it to anyone, even gay people!

 

[Eris_Discordia]

“One can not do an evil act even if good will result.”

How is giving health-care to someone evil? The true evil is denying health care to anyone. Health-care is a neutral act; it’s not evil to give it to anyone, even gay people!

Exactly. What about “Love your neighbor as yourself?”

 

[mjs1987]

“One can not do an evil act even if good will result.”

How is giving health-care to someone evil? The true evil is denying health care to anyone. Health-care is a neutral act; it’s not evil to give it to anyone, even gay people!

Because to do so would be to recognize the status of gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage. If you subsidize the homosexual lifestyle by providing healthcare coverage you are in effect saying that gay marriage is acceptable enough to be on par with heterosexual married couples by giving the same benefits to both.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Because to do so would be to recognize the status of gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage. If you subsidize the homosexual lifestyle by providing healthcare coverage you are in effect saying that gay marriage is acceptable enough to be on par with heterosexual married couples by giving the same benefits to both.

No, it’s not. It’s saying that these people work for you, and you give health care to them, because they work for you. Also, “Love thy neighbor as yourself.” I doubt Jesus would refuse health care to people no matter who they were. He healed the 10 lepers, and only one came back to praise him. He didn’t retroactively revoke his healing of the other nine, and he let them be healed.

 

[Abenadar]

No, it’s not. It’s saying that these people work for you, and you give health care to them, because they work for you. Also, “Love thy neighbor as yourself.” I doubt Jesus would refuse health care to people no matter who they were. He healed the 10 lepers, and only one came back to praise him. He didn’t retroactively revoke his healing of the other nine, and he let them be healed.

They’re not discontinuing healthcare for their employees. They are discontinuing healthcare for their employees’ spouses. They are doing this because the law says that they would have to provide healthcare to same-sex couples…If they did that, it would signal that they tacitly support same-sex ‘marriage’ by making it equal to real marriage. As Catholics, they are doing the right thing by still giving healthcare to their employees, while not the spouses. In this way they don’t have to discriminate or break any laws.

 

[JimG]

“We looked at all the options and implications,” said the charity’s president, Edward J. Orzechowski. "This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city’s new requirements and remain faithful to the church’s teaching."Actually, DC Catholic Charities is doing the District of Columbia a great favor by making this change. By doing so, it is able to remain and provide services which are sorely needed, while not recognizing gay marriage. The law, which had no conscience provisions for religious organizations, was intent on forcing everyone to recognize gay marriage even if it conflicted with doctrine or conscience. The law was approved by the city council without a vote of the residents of DC.

It could have kept it’s benefits the same, and simply refused to do any services for the city. But that would have hurt many people who benefited from its services. The gay lobby simply intends to force the Catholic Church to accept gay marriage or go out of business.

 

[mariamar]

For a catholic the union between two persons of same sex it is NOT A MARRIAGE, so not giving them the help that is given to a marriage couple it is not being unfair to them. If in order to avoid, for legal reasons (that recognize them as married), the Archdiocese has to drop coverage, it is morally correct. I suposse they will try to help the Real spouses in another way.

 

[St_Francis]

But the church is still denying to help people. It’s still wrong. Also, lot of homosexual couples are still able to give loving homes. If I was an older kid up for adoption, I know I wouldn’t care about who adopted me, as long as they were loving.

First of all, the issue is health coverage, not adoption.

Secondly, you might think that now, but maybe not when you are older.

A lot of children appear to be all right in a situation, but that is because they perceive it as normal and they are kind of molded to it; their adjustments are in tune with their reality. Later, however, it is a different story, as the adjustments they have made to an abnormal situation do not mesh with normalcy, and they run into problems, some of which do not show up until they marry or even until they have children or their children reach a certain age.