The Bishops oppose Catholic Universities offering extended benefits to same sex spouses of their employees

[Corki]

Well, you’re definitely on point, here. I think Corgi’s argument was similar.

Corgi??? A Corgi is a dog while Corki was a loveable character from the comic pages in the 50s.

 

[Rin]

Any amount of claims that this is not about denying people healthcare, will not change the fact that this is exactly how it looks, and will look to the vast majority of the general public. In reality, people would be left without coverage if not for spousal benefits, and in this case, reality matters more than lofty explanations as to how this is really not meant to deny people coverage.

Not to derail, but this is exactly why I’m in favor of universal welfare - which was, by the way, a conservative policy in many countries, since the socialists wanted welfare only to be given to those without property. Those with property would have to go bankrupt before receiving welfare. Universal welfare protected personal property, and was therefore supported by many conservative parties, and for decades opposed by many socialist parties.

Anyhow, I digress. I find this quarreling over giving gay partners spousal benefits to be counterproductive. The bishops are choosing the wrong battle here. A better solution would be to change the spousal benefit into something which could be extended to any cohabitating partner, with no assumption of sexual activity. That way, a brother and sister living together, celibate partners, and other alternative living arrangements completely in line with Catholic teaching, could also benefit from the policy.

 

[WilT]

Shouldn’t the fault be on the institution that hires those that morally appose the Churches teaching? If the institutions had moral guidelines and hired those understanding and promising to abide by them as in hiring traditional Catholic employees, they wouldn’t be where we are at today. If the institution had a strong Catholic faculty these cases wouldn’t be in existence. We have shot ourselves on the foot.

 

[Rin]

Shouldn’t the fault be on the institution that hires those that morally appose the Churches teaching? If the institutions had moral guidelines and hired those understanding and promising to abide by them as in hiring traditional Catholic employees, they wouldn’t be where we are at today. If the institution had a strong Catholic faculty these cases wouldn’t be in existence. We have shot ourselves on the foot.

The problem with this is that while such policies could arguably be justly applied to those who teach anything related to Catholic doctrine, it would be completely unjust for janitors, administrative employees, those who teach sciences not related to Catholic doctrine (if the university is not specialized to theology) and so on.

Even if the university was purely theological, and hence all members of faculty could be screened this way, they would still constitute a minority of the total employees. Firing a janitor over being in a gay partnership would be grossly unjust, and not fitting any institution carrying the designation ‘Catholic’.

 

[WilT]

The problem with this is that while such policies could arguably be justly applied to those who teach anything related to Catholic doctrine, it would be completely unjust for janitors, administrative employees, those who teach sciences not related to Catholic doctrine (if the university is not specialized to theology) and so on.

Even if the university was purely theological, and hence all members of faculty could be screened this way, they would still constitute a minority of the total employees. Firing a janitor over being in a gay partnership would be grossly unjust, and not fitting any institution carrying the designation ‘Catholic’.

You make a good point Rin. I just feel that once the institution hires those who disagree with the moral beliefs of our Faith then this would leave open the door for those seeking to harm the Church. Strong religious supervision was lacking I feel and now the institution has to deal with an in-house rebellion.
Should the Catholic Institutions hire non Catholics workers. I’d say if one does I believe this will (in the future) possibly come back and bite it.
A New Age janitor get’s hired and say he/she works him/herself up to the very top and now acquires power to change the tempo and philosophy of the school. A simple janitor with different beliefs can be a challenge for the Institution at a later time. They’re many Catholic janitors out there that could do as good as a job as any.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Long ago many “catholic” universities stopped listening to the Bishops and indeed the Church. I very much doubt this is even an issue they would consider being more Catholic on.

 

[Valdemar]

You make a good point Rin. I just feel that once the institution hires those who disagree with the moral beliefs of our Faith then this would leave open the door for those seeking to harm the Church. Strong religious supervision was lacking I feel and now the institution has to deal with an in-house rebellion.
Should the Catholic Institutions hire non Catholics workers. I’d say if one does I believe this will (in the future) possibly come back and bite it.
A New Age janitor get’s hired and say he/she works him/herself up to the very top and now acquires power to change the tempo and philosophy of the school. A simple janitor with different beliefs can be a challenge for the Institution at a later time. They’re many Catholic janitors out there that could do as good as a job as any.

No, he doesn’t.

There is no “injustice” in refusing to sanction in any way sodomite relationships.

All of these slushy answers just indicate how low we have fallen.

Now it is “unjust” not to show respect for sodomy and sodomite relationships?

Seriously, it is almost absurd to discuss these issues anymore.

America will just have to let this moral and philosophical toxin run its course. I do not believe there is any going back now.

 

[boar2roar]

Any amount of claims that this is not about denying people healthcare, will not change the fact that this is exactly how it looks, and will look to the vast majority of the general public. In reality, people would be left without coverage if not for spousal benefits, and in this case, reality matters more than lofty explanations as to how this is really not meant to deny people coverage.

Not to derail, but this is exactly why I’m in favor of universal welfare - which was, by the way, a conservative policy in many countries, since the socialists wanted welfare only to be given to those without property. Those with property would have to go bankrupt before receiving welfare. Universal welfare protected personal property, and was therefore supported by many conservative parties, and for decades opposed by many socialist parties.

Anyhow, I digress. I find this quarreling over giving gay partners spousal benefits to be counterproductive. The bishops are choosing the wrong battle here. A better solution would be to change the spousal benefit into something which could be extended to any cohabitating partner, with no assumption of sexual activity. That way, a brother and sister living together, celibate partners, and other alternative living arrangements completely in line with Catholic teaching, could also benefit from the policy.

No it isn’t, the media brainwashed people into thinking homos are normal. The bishops are absolutely right on this matter. Its funny because a lot of these gay crusaders will find themselves on the “closed minded” “its not natural” side when incest will be making these inroads some time in the future.

 

[vsedriver]

Your analogy is faulty. Even in a market where most people get their insurance through an employer, no one is saying that homosexuals or people in same-sex partnerships should be excluded from insurance. But employees cannot just add any additional person they want to their policies. Family members, including spouses, are generally the only ones who can be added. It is not wrong for a Catholic institution to be consistent in saying that a same-sex partner is not equivalent to a spouse when it comes to insurance in the same way that the institution makes the same statement in all other contexts.

The situation is not sticky at all.

this is correct. I live with my elderly mother. Two women, neither is married. But I can’t put her on my insurance which would be a lot less than the insurance she has to pay for now. And you can’t deny we have a loving, familial relationship, commited for life.

 

[Rin]

You make a good point Rin. I just feel that once the institution hires those who disagree with the moral beliefs of our Faith then this would leave open the door for those seeking to harm the Church. Strong religious supervision was lacking I feel and now the institution has to deal with an in-house rebellion.
Should the Catholic Institutions hire non Catholics workers. I’d say if one does I believe this will (in the future) possibly come back and bite it.
A New Age janitor get’s hired and say he/she works him/herself up to the very top and now acquires power to change the tempo and philosophy of the school. A simple janitor with different beliefs can be a challenge for the Institution at a later time. They’re many Catholic janitors out there that could do as good as a job as any.

I understand how you think, I just think your solution is neither realistic nor right.

First, it is a fact that generally (I’m speaking internationally now - I don’t know American law on this), one cannot screen every position in a religious institution on basis of religion, living situation and so on. It’s generally only allowed for positions where the employee will be teaching the religion of the institution, or in positions where some kind of ordination is required. One may also be allowed to bind others to be loyal to Catholic teaching at the workplace (as I know Caritas do in my country, though they do not require employees to be Catholic), but a janitor simply cannot be required to be Catholic, in most jurisdictions. Additionally, such selection (especially if it leads to a janitor being fired over leaving the Church, ending up in a cohabitating relationship with either sex, or any other religion-related reason) would be horrible publicity, and I do think we have to consider that. Of course, on some things, we should not consider publicity; abortion being an example. We should fear God more than man. But we should also let people come to us since they see our love and care for people; firing a janitor over leaving the Church or cohabitating simply will hardly be seen as love and care.

Secondly, your fear about a janitor taking over the entire university is kind of far-fetched . For a janitor to become president or rector of a university, they would need a Ph.D, a few postdoctorates and so on first. I doubt that would happen while working full-time as a janitor. Your scenario is more relevant if the non-Catholic person is let’s say professor in physics or some language or other subject not related to Catholic teaching, but that can easily be prevented in the statutes. One could say that the president or rector has to be recruited from the faculty of theology, or one could simply say that the president or rector has to be Catholic, since they have the ultimate teaching responsibility for theology and theology-related philosophy. One could also bind the university to orthodox, Catholic teaching in the statutes, and then it would be up to the diocese to pay attention to whether these statutes are being followed. At this time I agree many universities should lose their Catholic designation (though not on the basis of things like this thread; I simply see it as irrelevant to their status), since they seemingly completely ignore their commitment to Catholic teaching.

To sum up, I don’t think we’ll escape the fact that not hiring non-Catholics (and not hiring actively gay people) to positions that aren’t responsible for teaching Catholic doctrine, is not acceptable in our society. It is also in my opinion unjust discrimination. We’ll also have to face that in secular law, gay partnerships are increasingly recognized as valid unions, and our secular institutions like hospitals and universities are bound to secular law. We also have to recognize that gay partners, whether we agree with their choice or not, need healthcare too, and depriving them of it (which would be the real-life result of not extending benefits too them) would be gravely unjust. There is, lastly, nothing in canon law that prevents extending health benefits to partners of any kind.

I think best solution would be simply to change the spouse benefit into a “partner of your choice”-benefit, without caring whether the relationship is sexual or whether there is a familial bond in the sacramental sense. This would also benefit (admittedly small in our time) groups like siblings who live together and so on.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Sure they do. They may not have an unbreakable spiritual bond to each other, and their relationship may not be equivalent with regards to children, but no one has ever stated that their commitment to each other is unequivalent to that of a heterosexual married couple. They are just as committed and should thus be provided with the same medical coverage. If one is willing to dedicate themselves for life to the caretaking of another, there should be an actuarial insurance benefit for that. There is no need to consider whether their marriage is valid or not in doing so, nor does providing health insurance claim their marriage is valid. It merely recognizes the commitment inherent in their vows, a commitment much higher than that of a friend or coworker.

Should Insurance providers like these ones be required to extend benefits to a brother/sister with whom you are committed to each other?

 

[sallybutler]

Should Insurance providers like these ones be required to extend benefits to a brother/sister with whom you are committed to each other?

Who will be covered on employer provided insurance plans are generally contracted between the insurance company and the employer. One company may decide they will only cover the employee, another will cover the employee and spouse and children. I worked at one company where the employee was allowed to enroll their parents and parents-in-law.

When it comes to non-employer provided insurance plans, I suspect that an insurance company could offer individual policies only, no family policies. Most offer both.

Supposedly, married men are healthier than unmarried men. I don’t know if that will apply to men in same sex marriages, but if it does, you can bet insurance companies will be willing to insure them. Bottom line trumps all in most companies.

 

[DeniseNY]

No it isn’t, the media brainwashed people into thinking homos are normal. The bishops are absolutely right on this matter. Its funny because a lot of these gay crusaders will find themselves on the “closed minded” “its not natural” side when incest will be making these inroads some time in the future.

“Homos”? Even though we may disagree with lifestyle, homosexuals are still due the same basic common courtesy that is due all our brothers and sisters. We, as Catholics, should know this.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

this is correct. I live with my elderly mother. Two women, neither is married. But I can’t put her on my insurance which would be a lot less than the insurance she has to pay for now. And you can’t deny we have a loving, familial relationship, commited for life.

There are quite a few people who’d be willing to extend coverage to cases such as yours.

 

[SMGS127]

Should Insurance providers like these ones be required to extend benefits to a brother/sister with whom you are committed to each other?

Why would they? There is no proven actuarial benefit of having a sister, while having a wife (even for a woman) has a proven actuarial benefit. Insurance companies are interested in maximizing actuarial benefits; this has nothing to do with recognizing same-sex marriages as Catholic marriages but rather recognizing that same-sex civil marriages (as with all civil marriages) drastically improve the average health of the partners.

 

[boar2roar]

“Homos”? Even though we may disagree with lifestyle, homosexuals are still due the same basic common courtesy that is due all our brothers and sisters. We, as Catholics, should know this.

You wouldn’t show courtesy to someone committing incest or to someone in a polygamous relationship. You’ve just been bombarded with propaganda to accept a just as disordered thing as those.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You wouldn’t show courtesy to someone committing incest or to someone in a polygamous relationship. You’ve just been bombarded with propaganda to accept a just as disordered thing as those.

I think we should show sexually active LGB couples the same level of courtesy as we do to fornicating couples.

 

[vsedriver]

Why would they? There is no proven actuarial benefit of having a sister, while having a wife (even for a woman) has a proven actuarial benefit. Insurance companies are interested in maximizing actuarial benefits; this has nothing to do with recognizing same-sex marriages as Catholic marriages but rather recognizing that same-sex civil marriages (as with all civil marriages) drastically improve the average health of the partners.

has any actuarial benefit lilke that ever been done? Is it sex that improves the average health of the partners? would that mean that partners who no longer have sex no longer enjoy an improved health?

Otherwise there is no difference between 2 lesbians setting up house and my mother and I living together. If the state is going to pass out benefits for domestic relationship it should be open to all kinds of domestic relationships.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think we should show sexually active LGB couples the same level of courtesy as we do to fornicating couples.

I agree. Which is why I am sure the Bishops also oppose a hooker getting benefits from a john if the john happens to work at or attend a Catholic school. But I just don’t see that as a contested issue.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree. Which is why I am sure the Bishops also oppose a hooker getting benefits from a john if the john happens to work at or attend a Catholic school. But I just don’t see that as a contested issue.

Aware you aware that prostitution and fornication are different? Clearly a cohabiting unmarried couple shouldn’t be able to give benefits, nor should a couple where one has been married twice without an annulment and the first spouse yet lives.