Homosexual Marriage and the Washington Archdioces

[Biggie]

Catholic Charities – the archdiocese’s social service arm – said last month that it would end its 80-year-old foster care program rather than place children with same-sex couples. On Monday, it told its 800 employees that it would not make spousal health benefits available to any new employee, straight or gay, to any current employee who marries in the future or to spouses of current employees who are not covered by the plan. … “No one in the past said, ‘Because you’re motivated by love of the Gospel, you can’t perform [social services.]’ The question always was: ‘Did you serve everyone?’ And the answer was yes,” said Wuerl, who said The Post had unfairly characterized the church as having a choice. He cited an expression, “The prophet isn’t judged by the success of his message but fidelity of his message.”

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203947.html

This is Jimmy Akins’ opinion:

It’s always dramatic when, in a war, the capitol city falls.
Jerusalem before Romans.
Rome before barbarians.
Constantinople before Turks.
Richmond before Yankees.
Paris before the Germans.
Berlin before the Allies.
Kabul . . . Baghdad . . . and countless others.

And now Washington has fallen.

In the culture war.

As of today, licenses for homosexual “marriages” are being issued in Washington, D.C.

ncregister.com/blog/weve_lost_the_capitol?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:15:22:44Z

These moves are despicable. And attempts by the Archdiocese to blame the new same sex marriage law are ridiculous. The law didn’t force the Archdiocese to abandon children in foster care or screw over their employee’s families. The blame sits squarely on the shoulders of church leadership that’s decided to prioritize a commitment to discrimination over valuable social services work.

feministing.com/archives/020237.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Feministing+(Feministing)

So are the actions of the Washington D.C. archdiocese “despicable”?

 

[TOB_questions]

The fact of the matter is, these actions are not necessarily despicable…however they shed a very bad light on the Church. Initially the Church used this argument to blackmail the lawmakers of DC into rejecting the gay marriage bill.

Legally speaking, the Church was obstructing justice however theologically speaking, the Church was doing what it deemed necessary to fight the gays having equal legal rights, for a legal status that has NOTHING to do with the sacrament. Me putting on my 1040 that I have a spouse has nothing to do with how much I may love that spouse in God’s eyes

As to what the Church did…I remember there was a quote somewhere (I forget what it was exactly) but the gist of it was, " sometimes you have to abandon the light in order to do what must be done"

 

[JimG]

The gay lobby in DC was intent on forcing the Church through its Catholic Charities operation to accept gay marriage. That it cannot do and remain Catholic. The DC city council passed the law without a vote of the residents of DC and refused to include conscience protection for religious organizations. Catholic Charities had no choice. It is doing the city a favor by finding a way to keep providing its services to the poor. But the city and the gay lobby won’t appreciate that. They would rather the Church simply disappear and they would request more money from Congress instead.

 

[rossum]

The Catholic Church does not recognise divorce. She regards divorced people who ‘remarry’ under civil law as living in sin. It is not clear in all this what the previous policy was towards divorced people who had remarried under state law, but not under Catholic law, and hence were ‘living in sin’.

If the previous policy was to disallow benefits to such unrecognised spouses then the Church has a good case.

If the previous policy was to allow benefits in such cases then there is a case to show discrimination. One kind of living in sin is penalised while another is not.

Without knowing more it is not possible to tell which of the two applies here. In both cases there is a difference between who the civil authorities recognises as being married and who the Church recognises as being married.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Aboveallbereal]

The sacramental nature of marriage is a privately held belief. Civil marriage is now an empty shell, a contract voidable by either party at any time assuming notice is given.

Quite why barring access to such a meaningless institution should be policy of the Church s beyond me. As ong as the Church is not obliged to actively participate in he distasteful nonsense that ought to be enough. let them enter meaningless civic contracts if the will. Thousands of heterosexual people do.

 

[markomalley]

(from a resident of ADW)

In my humble opinion

The Archdiocese messed up years ago when they climbed in bed with the government. Allowing the government to assist in funding the social programs of the Archdiocese was a grave error. Administering or assisting in the administration of government programs by the Archdiocese is a grave error.

The Archdiocese (or any other Catholic moral person) risks having the gospel corrupted when they are infiltrated by government. This applies to the strings with the school voucher test program that was recently terminated; it applies to homeless shelters; it applies to adoption programs; it applies to hospitals.

Had the Archdiocese maintained complete independence from the government, they would have a first amendment case in regards to the services they provide (i.e., unacceptable government interference in religion). But since they made a decision decades ago to accept some government funding, they serve merely as agents of the State in that matter. The Church should never find itself in a subordinate position to the State:

…it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal…
​

(Bull of Boniface VII, Unam Sanctum, 1302)

Those decisions were not made by Archbishop Wuerl, but by his predecessors. I am very gratified that he took the only action he could take: to get out of the equation.

Again, the above is strictly

In my humble opinion

and it should be regarded

For what it’s worth

And, as always,

Your mileage may vary

​

 

[JimG]

Had the Archdiocese maintained complete independence from the government, they would have a first amendment case in regards to the services they provide (i.e., unacceptable government interference in religion). But since they made a decision decades ago to accept some government funding, they serve merely as agents of the State in that matter.

These are some valid points. My understanding is that the city contracted with Catholic Charities to provide certain services. Many people now depend on those services. It’s unfortunate that a religious organization is unable in these degenerate times even to contract to provide charitable services without losing its soul. It may be that the Church and church organizations may find it necessary to completely detach from government funding, even from providing government paid services. The Church cannot risk becoming an agent of evil, and sadly, government now often promotes evil, and mandates cooperation with evil as a precondition even to doing good.

 

[hellopeople]

So are the actions of the Washington D.C. archdiocese “despicable”?

Despicable? No, probably not. Lacking compassion…I would say so.

 

[edwest2]

Did the Catholic Church originate the idea of gay marriage?

Is there an ongoing campaoign to normalize gay marriage?

Is there an ongoing campaign against the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church did the right and proper thing. Other institutions will carry on with the work they leave. All laws discriminate against behaviors and other rules decided by We The People.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Corki]

The fact of the matter is, these actions are not necessarily despicable…however they shed a very bad light on the Church. Initially the Church used this argument to blackmail the lawmakers of DC into rejecting the gay marriage bill.

Legally speaking, the Church was obstructing justice however theologically speaking, the Church was doing what it deemed necessary to fight the gays having equal legal rights, for a legal status that has NOTHING to do with the sacrament. Me putting on my 1040 that I have a spouse has nothing to do with how much I may love that spouse in God’s eyes

You might have had some valid points IF the bill contained an exemption for religious organizations. It is not obstruction of justice to fight to maintain the right to function according to the organization’s religious beliefs. This is not about 1040s or any other relationship between the couples and the federal government. This was about activists’ strong arming the Church and other private organiztions into a twisted morality in order to continue to do good work.