Punish married couples for the sins of the DC council?

[didymus]

This is from Edward Peters, a canon lawyer & brings up some good points. Archbishop Wurel’s decision certainly seems harsh on married staff.

In the Light of the Law:

Punish married couples for the sins of the DC council?

First, the archbishop’s fears about his coming across as legitimizing “same-sex marriage” unless he cuts off spousal benefits seem misplaced: no action performed under compulsion can be construed as necessarily signaling approval or agreement with such action.

Second – and even though, like most good lawyers, I don’t go around looking for battles nor do I lightly recommend them to others – what appears to be a very promising case to fight this intrusive legislation is being squandered by the archdiocese’s capitulation to the policy. The archdiocese seems to have very good facts on its side and is blessed with real resources to fight this civil imposition on its governance. It could doubtless attract significant support from others if it turns and fights. If it folds, however, not only is its own position lost, but many other smaller operations, less able to resist, will doubtless come under added pressure to conform.

Third, as it stands, the archdiocese’s decision does not deny a single gay-couple coverage, but it does deprive people who are trying to live in accord with Church teaching on marriage and the family the dignity of having their vocation recognized in something besides papal encyclicals and catechisms. The pressures bearing down on married couples, especially those raising children, are burgeoning, while the concrete gestures of support toward them are becoming ever fewer and further apart. One of these days . . .

 

[markomalley]

This is from Edward Peters, a canon lawyer & brings up some good points. Archbishop Wurel’s decision certainly seems harsh on married staff.

In the Light of the Law:

Frankly, the fact that we’re having this discussion is an illustration of how far astray we’ve gone, as a society, from the natural law. To even consider homosexual relationships as “marriages” is utterly ludicrous on the surface.

The other aside that I’d make is that this is yet another illustration of the problem with providing health care by a centralized mechanism (i.e.,by way of insurance, government social security, or whatever). It is so ubiquitous that it is now recognized as a “right” and must be protected. We’ve got to keep in mind that employer-provided health insurance did not really become widespread until WWII – as part of benefit packages given workers as a result of the government-imposed wage freezes in that era.

Having said the above, I don’t see that Abp Wuerl could have done anything other than what he did. The door was cracked open by his predecessors and he is attempting to keep it from swinging wider. I’m, frankly, not a Wuerl fan, but I’ll give him credit where it is due.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t think this is the diocese’s punishing the married people; the blame falls on the DC Council. If married people want to work for CC, and they can’t because of the decision to offer only individual insurance, they need to go to the DC Council.

This all just goes to show that certain government decisions are seriously destructive of morality, and to blame the Church for the decision not to offer any other type of insurance in the face of the government action is silly.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Here’s an idea: institute a Moral Code for all the Catholic employers, including Catholic Charities, schools, universities, hospitals and clinics, and so on. And put it in there, clearly, that only those who comply with this book of Moral Code are eligible for employment by said Catholic employers. Then, compile the list of what’s required and what’s not permissible under this Moral Code, and have it approved by the Bishops, or even better, by the Vatican and the Pope himself. A single Moral Codebook could apply to the whole range of Catholic employers in the USA, and even across the globe, why not? In this Moral Codebook, spell out things such as: practicing homosexuals, heterosexuals who shack up and live together without being married to each other, people who get remarried without an annulment after divorce, are not eligible for employment.

It would protect the Catholic employers from the government trying to impose immoral laws on them. It would also take care of many other problems and keep the Catholic institutions truly Catholic.

Consider also, for example, the falling away of Catholic Universities. I’ve read that recently Boston College decided to put back the crucifixes into the classrooms, and the Chairman of the Department of Chemistry was outraged. Well, put it as a requirement into the Moral Codebook, that the employee must not be hostile to the Catholic religion and its symbols, and don’t allow people such as the mentioned Chairman to be employed, in the first place, at Catholic institutions. Also codify as a prerequisite of employment whatever the Pope and Bishops deem necessary, and whatever is needed to keep out people who push open dissent from Catholic teachings such as the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, condemning abortion, artificial birth control, the inappropriate use of sexuality including the homosexual lifestyle, and so on.

 

[Biggie]

Frankly, the fact that we’re having this discussion is an illustration of how far astray we’ve gone, as a society, from the natural law. To even consider homosexual relationships as “marriages” is utterly ludicrous on the surface.

The other aside that I’d make is that this is yet another illustration of the problem with providing health care by a centralized mechanism (i.e.,by way of insurance, government social security, or whatever). It is so ubiquitous that it is now recognized as a “right” and must be protected. We’ve got to keep in mind that employer-provided health insurance did not really become widespread until WWII – as part of benefit packages given workers as a result of the government-imposed wage freezes in that era.

Having said the above, I don’t see that Abp Wuerl could have done anything other than what he did. The door was cracked open by his predecessors and he is attempting to keep it from swinging wider. I’m, frankly, not a Wuerl fan, but I’ll give him credit where it is due.

Absolutely sparkling response. I wholeheartedly agree with every word.

 

[hellopeople]

I don’t think this is the diocese’s punishing the married people; the blame falls on the DC Council. If married people want to work for CC, and they can’t because of the decision to offer only individual insurance, they need to go to the DC Council.

This all just goes to show that certain government decisions are seriously destructive of morality, and to blame the Church for the decision not to offer any other type of insurance in the face of the government action is silly.

This is NOT the right way to look at it. The church could have continued to provide health care to its employees and spouses, but chose not to so they could avoid giving health benefits for homosexuals. But why are they only punishing one sin? If they are doing this to avoid giving same sex partners health insurance, why not avoid giving it to people that are divorced and remarried, or people that have been arrested for theft and other things, or people that are gluttonous or not good people? Why are they only doing this for homosexuality.

It is the church’s fault. Honestly, how many married gay people are going to work for the church anyway? Barely any to be honest…yet the church decides to punish all married couples and tries to blame it on the government. I think its pathetic and disgusting.

 

[Langdell]

Here’s an idea: institute a Moral Code for all the Catholic employers, including Catholic Charities, schools, universities, hospitals and clinics, and so on. And put it in there, clearly, that only those who comply with this book of Moral Code are eligible for employment by said Catholic employers. Then, compile the list of what’s required and what’s not permissible under this Moral Code, and have it approved by the Bishops, or even better, by the Vatican and the Pope himself. A single Moral Codebook could apply to the whole range of Catholic employers in the USA, and even across the globe, why not? In this Moral Codebook, spell out things such as: practicing homosexuals, heterosexuals who shack up and live together without being married to each other, people who get remarried without an annulment after divorce, are not eligible for employment.

It would protect the Catholic employers from the government trying to impose immoral laws on them. It would also take care of many other problems and keep the Catholic institutions truly Catholic.

Consider also, for example, the falling away of Catholic Universities. I’ve read that recently Boston College decided to put back the crucifixes into the classrooms, and the Chairman of the Department of Chemistry was outraged. Well, put it as a requirement into the Moral Codebook, that the employee must not be hostile to the Catholic religion and its symbols, and don’t allow people such as the mentioned Chairman to be employed, in the first place, at Catholic institutions. Also codify as a prerequisite of employment whatever the Pope and Bishops deem necessary, and whatever is needed to keep out people who push open dissent from Catholic teachings such as the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, condemning abortion, artificial birth control, the inappropriate use of sexuality including the homosexual lifestyle, and so on.

Interesting suggestion. However, it would be illegal in the U.S. An employer is not permitted to require employees to adhere to certain beliefs.

.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Interesting suggestion. However, it would be illegal in the U.S. An employer is not permitted to require employees to adhere to certain beliefs.

.

Actually I think this is not totally correct.

The Supreme Court upheld that the Boy Scouts could forbid the hiring and fire any homosexuals in the organizations because they are a private institution.

I believe the rules are slightly different for private institutions and for religious institutions.