Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church

[Bubba_Switzler]

If the church receives public money, it should have to live by the public’s rules. But Mr. Deneen makes the argument that it’s actually the city that is dependent on the church. The archdiocese receives public funds because it provides important social services in a way that is both cheaper and likely more effective than if the city itself provided those services. At the very least, while still spending the $20 million it already gives the archdiocese, the city would have to live without the $10 million the archdiocese spends on its charities if the church dropped its charitable programs altogether.

But the archdiocese isn’t willing to play hardball with the city. Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, told me that her organization is committed to serving the poor, regardless of what the laws are in the District, and that it is now looking “to find a way to enable Catholic Charities to keep working in partnership with the city.”

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612451567822852.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

 

[JimG]

"So either the archdiocese will drop benefits for all employees—if it doesn’t provide benefits to married couples, it won’t have to offer them to same-sex couples—or it will follow in the footsteps of Georgetown University, the District’s largest Catholic organization. There, an employee, whether gay or straight, married or not, receives full benefits for himself plus one legally domiciled member of his or her household. This would allow the archdiocese to save face by pretending it isn’t knowingly recognizing gay marriages."Anybody taking bets on whether the DC Archdiocese ends up with a de facto recognition of gay marriage? If so, the score will be: Gay Marriage 1, Catholic Archdiocese 0.

Or the Church could opt out of providing any social services within the archdiocese, or contracting with the city to do so. I doubt that the city cares: they’ll ask Congress for more money. Gay activists would rather have the recognition–especially by the Catholic Church-- than the social services.

There may also be a move within Congress to withhold approval unless there is a referendum on the matter. (The proposal was approved by the city council and mayor, not by a vote of the people.) That would at least give some indication of the actual level of support for gay marriage within the population.

 

[JReducation]

I was stationed in the Archdiocese of Washington for many years and worked at two of its largest social service programs. The city does not give the Archdiocese money. The city contracts the services of various Catholic agencies, because it does not have the services and in some cases, it does have the services, but the numbers are too large and they have to farm out the clients to private organizations. The Catholic Church is not the only private provider of services to the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia buses children across the state line into Virginia and into Maryland for special education at private schools, because it cannot meet the needs of these children. No one says that these private schools are receiving funds from the city. They are being paid for a service that they provide. It’s called justice.

The solution is very simple. If the city does not approve of the policies of the Archdiocese it can do what it does when it disagrees with the policies of other private service providers, it can keep shopping for other providers. There is no law in this country that says that a private business, for profit or non-profit, must change its policies to make the government happy. Agencies must comply with laws that are proper to the service that they provide. For example, you cannot provide healthcare with nurses who are not licensed and so forth.

The rule of law is simple. The state shall not purchase services from private vendors who are not in compliance with the law. The rule of law places the burden on the state, not on the vendor. If the state passes laws that the vendors cannot meet, then the state has to provide the services. It’s that simple.

In 1997 the City of San Francisco passed a law that employees must treat domestic partners as spouses. Archbishop Levada objected to this; but the city would not budge. The Archbishop ruled that unmarried employees of the archdiocese could designate any person sharing the same address as their beneficiary.

I don’t know anything about Georgetown University. But it would not suprise me if they took their model from that decision, which apparently Cardinal Ratzinger agreed was not in conflict with the faith. It is pretty obvious that Cardinal Ratzinger was comfortable with Cardinal Levada’s strategy, because he named him his successor to the Congregation of the Faith.

There is a precedent that the Archdiocese of Washington can use. But if the District of Columbia wants more than that, then they may find themselves having to pay a lot of money to provide services that the Catholic Church can provide at a lower cost and higher quality.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mystagogia]

Aye, JimG, I think you are exactly correct in that this whole issue has been foisted on the Washington, DC community by the city council with very little support, if any, from the proverbial man on the street in DC. Tellingly, the man on the council who has got his finger most closely aligned with the street pulse is the infamous former mayor, Marion Barry, and he was the lone holdout in opposition of this bill. The problem is that street pulse is completely at odds with more elite opinions percolating from the tonier class of Democrat who has gained ascendancy in City Hall. This whole thing is being directed from the Georgetown and Capitol Hill wards, not the inner city wards.

What’s odd is that gay activism within the city has found itself in a downward spiral in broad terms, yet it is meeting its finest hour behind closed doors. Here’s some supporting evidence to that claim. DC did have a sort of “Castro Street” district that was a gay cultural center of mass, with the gay nightclubs and burlesques and so forth. Ironically, the city council destroyed it when they razed it all to build a baseball stadium for the hapless Washington Nationals, to great outcry in the gay community. One of the greatest forces in gay activism since the dark days of the AIDS epidemic (and it was and is an epidemic in Washington, DC) was the hallowed Whitman Walker Clinic. It is a shell of its former self. The other great bastion of gay activism was the city’s gay paper, The Blade, which closed down operations for good about a month ago. 5 years ago they were still landing one-on-one interviews with Democrat presidential candidates like John Kerry, now they are history.

City Hall has done everything they can to keep this gay marriage thing from facing a referendum or some kind of popular vote. It will fail that test. The idea that gay marriage is in any way akin to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s is taken as an affront to most in DC who remember those times.

City Hall is forcing this thing down everybody’s throat, and everybody knows it, and many resent it. The game is obvious, and it offends the idea of democratic governance. This is top-down politics, not bottom-up politics, and it grates.

I pray the Church can find a good way to weather this nasty and wholly unnecessary onslaught from the evil forces afoot here. But I fear it won’t be pretty in the end.

 

[JimG]

In 1997 the City of San Francisco passed a law that employees must treat domestic partners as spouses. Archbishop Levada objected to this; but the city would not budge. The Archbishop ruled that unmarried employees of the archdiocese could designate any person sharing the same address as their beneficiary.

In other words, the end result was a de facto recognition of gay marriage by the San Francisco archdiocese. Rather than fight the order to treat domestic partners as spouses, the diocese not only caved, but expanded the ruling, to mask the fact that it was complying with the city’s order.

Apparently Georgetown U. did the same thing.

The gay lobby likes nothing more than to make the Church complicit in its policies.

As mystagogia notes, these sorts of things are never the result of popular vote; rather they are policies foisted upon the community by top down rulings.

Now the gay lobby in California is once again attempting to undo the will of the people by judicial fiat. It’s time to fight back. The DC population ought to be loudly supporting a referendum. And the DC diocese ought to make clear that it will not recognize gay marriage, period.

 

[unafraid]

Having learned conclusively that the African American Community strongly opposes gay marriage, as witnessed by their role in shooting down the California attempt at writing it into state law, these conspirators shun the role of popular opinion in this matter. A referendum in D.C. would end up garnering single digits (percentages) in favor of gay marriage, thus sending a strong negative shockwave throughout the entire movement. They understand that this whole matter must be handled outside of the democratic process. That is what makes this group, and its cause, so nefarious. Slip the poison into the well while no one else is watching. Beware.

 

[JReducation]

In other words, the end result was a de facto recognition of gay marriage by the San Francisco archdiocese. Rather than fight the order to treat domestic partners as spouses, the diocese not only caved, but expanded the ruling, to mask the fact that it was complying with the city’s order. .

Not really. Everyone can read it. This is public information. Just Google Cardinal Levada. The city would not budge. The Archbishop tried every possible way to protect the benefits of the diocesan employees. He did run his decision past Cardinal Ratzinger. The justification was actually simple. There is nothing wrong with the Acrhdiocese allowing its employees to use their benefits as they want. It is not permissible for the Archdiocese to treat domestic partners as married couples. The law that was on the table in San Francisco did not say "same-sex couples.’ It said, domestic partners. The law also covered live-in boyfriends and girlfriends. It was not legalizing gay marriage. What it was saying is that domestic partners were entitled to marital benefits.

The Archbishop’s argument was that if the benefits were marital, the Church could not grant these benefits. What the Church did was to say that it would not grant marital benefits, but it would allow employees to place other members of their household on their policies. This could include grandchildren, parents, and so forth. It was the decision of the Church that it could make the benefits available to be used for others in your household. But it would not assume moral responsibility if you were living in sin, because it would not recognize co-habitation by members of either sex as equivalent to married couples. However, the Archdiocese also recognized that it had a moral obligation to provide the benefits to their employees either through policies or in cash and allow them to buy their own policies.

The reasoning was that if you gave the employees cash to purchase medical, life, disability, visual, and dental insurance, you have no control over who they put on their policy. So it made no difference whether they were on an individual policy or a corporate policy. There was another moral concern. Most insurance companies have rules about pre-existing conditions. If the Archdiocese cancled all of its policies and gave the employees a cash bonus to purchase their own policy, the employees would be taxed for this money and many employees would not be ensureable, because of pre-existing conditions.

The difference between the two cities is that Washington wants same-sex conjugal rights. San Francisco wanted domestic partner rights. In the Washington case, if the Archdiocese tries to apply the policy that Cardinal Levada applied in San Francisco, it may still be illegal. I don’t know. I just guessing here. I believe that the City Council wants the term spouse to appear on these benefits. Therefore, the benefits could not be extended to cover other relatives. It’s a much narrower playing field that the District of Columbia has carved out. I believe that they may have cornered themselves and may have some trouble backing out. They can still do so, but not without losing face.

By creating such a narrow rule, they have also created a situation for the Archdiocese that cannot be met. From a pure political perspective, it was a dumb thing to do, nevermind the moral side. Having lived in the District of Columbia for 19 years, I’m not suprised. For some reason, the government of that city is always in some kind of self-generated difficulty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JimG]

Not really. Everyone can read it. This is public information. Just Google Cardinal Levada. The city would not budge. The Archbishop tried every possible way to protect the benefits of the diocesan employees. He did run his decision past Cardinal Ratzinger. The justification was actually simple. There is nothing wrong with the Acrhdiocese allowing its employees to use their benefits as they want. It is not permissible for the Archdiocese to treat domestic partners as married couples. The law that was on the table in San Francisco did not say "same-sex couples.’ It said, domestic partners. The law also covered live-in boyfriends and girlfriends. It was not legalizing gay marriage. What it was saying is that domestic partners were entitled to marital benefits.

The Archbishop’s argument was that if the benefits were marital, the Church could not grant these benefits. What the Church did was to say that it would not grant marital benefits, but it would allow employees to place other members of their household on their policies.

So the law in question said that ‘domestic partners’ whatever that may mean, are entitled to marital benefits. The Archdiocese said that if the benefits were marital, it could not grant them. And yet it does grant them. Or found a way to grant them. The city does not, I presume, find the diocese still to be in contravention of the law. And anyone who is a 'domestic partner of someone employed by the diocese, is entitled to the same benefits as a marital partner. It just seems to be a rather convoluted way to comply with the law without admitting that one is doing so.

I’m sure you are more familiar with the issue than me, but it seems that the diocese has agreed to provide benefits to any household member, whatever the relationship, and that might include domestic partners, cohabitors, or gay partners.

 

[JReducation]

So the law in question said that ‘domestic partners’ whatever that may mean, are entitled to marital benefits. The Archdiocese said that if the benefits were marital, it could not grant them. And yet it does grant them. Or found a way to grant them. The city does not, I presume, find the diocese still to be in contravention of the law. And anyone who is a 'domestic partner of someone employed by the diocese, is entitled to the same benefits as a marital partner. It just seems to be a rather convoluted way to comply with the law without admitting that one is doing so.

I’m sure you are more familiar with the issue than me, but it seems that the diocese has agreed to provide benefits to any household member, whatever the relationship, and that might include domestic partners, cohabitors, or gay partners.

What the diocese does is to provide benefits to their employees and those living in their home. This is not the same as saying that they recognize domestic partners as having the same status as married couples. This is allowed in moral law. You can provide benefits to whomever you want. Moral law does not allow you to acknowledge non married couples as if they were married. But this is not what the Archbishop said. He said that he would provide a broader benefits package to his employees, equally. By treating all equally, there is no question about the Church giving recognition to non-married couples, gay or straight.

I don’t really know more than you do. I studied moral theology for a year while in the seminary. It was not my major. My major is mystical theology. Ask me about the soul, prayer, contemplation and spirituality and I can write forever. But this is an area where I have to differ to those who know the field much better than I do.

My guess is this, if Archbishop Levada was later elevated to cardinal, head of the biblical commission, head of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith by the same man who was his boss on matters of faith at the time that he made these policies, then his solution must be orthodox. You just don’t make an unorthodox Archbishop the head of your office on matters of faith and the head of your seminaries and your biblical commission.

As I said above, I’m not sure that this policy will work with this new law that DC is trying to enforce. I also have to admit that I do not know all of the ins and outs of the new law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JimG]

As I said above, I’m not sure that this policy will work with this new law that DC is trying to enforce. I also have to admit that I do not know all of the ins and outs of the new law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

My preferred solution for DC would be the one you mentioned above, i.e. "The solution is very simple. If the city does not approve of the policies of the Archdiocese it can do what it does when it disagrees with the policies of other private service providers, it can keep shopping for other providers."However, it seems doubtful that the DC diocese wants to play that kind of hardball.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Not really. Everyone can read it. This is public information. Just Google Cardinal Levada. The city would not budge. The Archbishop tried every possible way to protect the benefits of the diocesan employees. He did run his decision past Cardinal Ratzinger. The justification was actually simple. There is nothing wrong with the Acrhdiocese allowing its employees to use their benefits as they want. It is not permissible for the Archdiocese to treat domestic partners as married couples. The law that was on the table in San Francisco did not say "same-sex couples.’ It said, domestic partners. The law also covered live-in boyfriends and girlfriends. It was not legalizing gay marriage. What it was saying is that domestic partners were entitled to marital benefits.

The Archbishop’s argument was that if the benefits were marital, the Church could not grant these benefits. What the Church did was to say that it would not grant marital benefits, but it would allow employees to place other members of their household on their policies. This could include grandchildren, parents, and so forth. It was the decision of the Church that it could make the benefits available to be used for others in your household. But it would not assume moral responsibility if you were living in sin, because it would not recognize co-habitation by members of either sex as equivalent to married couples. However, the Archdiocese also recognized that it had a moral obligation to provide the benefits to their employees either through policies or in cash and allow them to buy their own policies.

The reasoning was that if you gave the employees cash to purchase medical, life, disability, visual, and dental insurance, you have no control over who they put on their policy. So it made no difference whether they were on an individual policy or a corporate policy. There was another moral concern. Most insurance companies have rules about pre-existing conditions. If the Archdiocese cancled all of its policies and gave the employees a cash bonus to purchase their own policy, the employees would be taxed for this money and many employees would not be ensureable, because of pre-existing conditions.

The difference between the two cities is that Washington wants same-sex conjugal rights. San Francisco wanted domestic partner rights. In the Washington case, if the Archdiocese tries to apply the policy that Cardinal Levada applied in San Francisco, it may still be illegal. I don’t know. I just guessing here. I believe that the City Council wants the term spouse to appear on these benefits. Therefore, the benefits could not be extended to cover other relatives. It’s a much narrower playing field that the District of Columbia has carved out. I believe that they may have cornered themselves and may have some trouble backing out. They can still do so, but not without losing face.

By creating such a narrow rule, they have also created a situation for the Archdiocese that cannot be met. From a pure political perspective, it was a dumb thing to do, nevermind the moral side. Having lived in the District of Columbia for 19 years, I’m not suprised. For some reason, the government of that city is always in some kind of self-generated difficulty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Just change the words and everything will be fine. that is what it seems to me.
domestic partners or whatever doesnt change the fact that two same sex people are living together. does the Church aproves of that? if the Church accept such a thing it will not be long before the Church will acknowledge same sex marriage. if this is the way it is going. it is insane.

why is the CC hiring same sex living together to work for the Church? if this a sin than the Church is harboring sin and complying with the world.

no wonder why the scandals continue to appear. people have forgotten God and has taking the over the Church that belongs to God and turn into their own corvil of evils.

i think the Church needs to repent, needs forgiveness and healing. the Church needs to be reminded of the those who died for the Church. when i look at the bishops today, i see nothing but pride in them. maybe few out there are not but these we dont see very often.

 

[Corki]

Just change the words and everything will be fine. that is what it seems to me.
domestic partners or whatever doesnt change the fact that two same sex people are living together. does the Church aproves of that? if the Church accept such a thing it will not be long before the Church will acknowledge same sex marriage. if this is the way it is going. it is insane.

**why is the CC hiring same sex living together to work for the Church? if this a sin than the Church is harboring sin and complying with the world. **
no wonder why the scandals continue to appear. people have forgotten God and has taking the over the Church that belongs to God and turn into their own corvil of evils.

i think the Church needs to repent, needs forgiveness and healing. the Church needs to be reminded of the those who died for the Church. when i look at the bishops today, i see nothing but pride in them. maybe few out there are not but these we dont see very often.

This is my question. In our diocese, all the job postings include a statement under the job requirements that says something like “lifestyle consistent with Church teaching.” The Catholic schools have “morals” clauses in their contracts.

The diocisan policies prohibit “Any action which renders a person an unacceptable security risk, adversely affects the Diocesan or parish’s public image, or causes embarrassment to the Diocese or its parishioners.” and “Teaching doctrines contrary to the Faith or promotion of causes in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Either DC has very lax policies already or they aren’t following the ones they have or this would be a non-issue.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is my question. In our diocese, all the job postings include a statement under the job requirements that says something like “lifestyle consistent with Church teaching.” The Catholic schools have “morals” clauses in their contracts.

The diocisan policies prohibit “Any action which renders a person an unacceptable security risk, adversely affects the Diocesan or parish’s public image, or causes embarrassment to the Diocese or its parishioners.” and “Teaching doctrines contrary to the Faith or promotion of causes in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Either DC has very lax policies already or they aren’t following the ones they have or this would be a non-issue.

Exactly. no wonder why things are going from bad to worse. bishops have cowardly accept whatever goes because they are afraid to be criticized. they have no business in complying with such evil. until this day i stil dont know the position of the Pope in all this. it seems to me that the most important thing to them is that we should live in peace even at the cost of selling themselves to evil.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Exactly. no wonder why things are going from bad to worse. bishops have cowardly accept whatever goes because they are afraid to be criticized. they have no business in complying with such evil. until this day i stil dont know the position of the Pope in all this. it seems to me that the most important thing to them is that we should live in peace even at the cost of selling themselves to evil.

This is a very interesting point. Even if one is willing to look the other way on the employment of practicing homosexuals in Catholic institutions it clearly is leading to more complicated problems that are not so easily overlooked. It’s the proverbial camel nose under the tent. Catholic Charities (for example) is having problems here because they didn’t take a stand there.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is a very interesting point. Even if one is willing to look the other way on the employment of practicing homosexuals in Catholic institutions it clearly is leading to more complicated problems that are not so easily overlooked. It’s the proverbial camel nose under the tent. Catholic Charities (for example) is having problems here because they didn’t take a stand there.

we are not done yet wiht all the problems. deceit is everywhere. the laity must wake up and stop going around like everything is good. i am just fed up with what is going on in the Church. we must see that these shepards have not protect the Faith and the Teachings passed on to us. just look at the bishops meetings, i see them laughing and joking as if they have no worries whatsoever. like everything is great in the Church. they dont even seem to care about the abuses and the scandals. they look more like a bunch of politians dressed in suits. they dont behave like pious men and faithfull men. yet they continuously chastize the people but cannot be examples to the people. they have messed wiht the Liturgy and do not have the courage to admit and repent.

I want to see them humble themselves show repentence before God and i know things will happen. i believe there is a passage in the Sacred Bible, it think is in Ezekiel that God is unhappy with the shepards of Israel because they misleading the people. these bishops shouldnt go around thinking that they are immune from such a thing. they too can make mystake and be wrong and need repentance before our Lord.

 

[mystagogia]

Wisdomseeker, the Church in Washington, DC is not hiring gay married people, or at least not knowingly. The truth is, such private matters are not a factor in hiring. They do not ask you who you sleep with when you come down and sign up for work.

The heavily ironic thing is that the progressives are making personal behavior an official issue here, not the Church. Your personal sexual proclivities remain in the realm of the personal should the Church interview you for a job in a soup kitchen. But they are in the public realm if the government is doing the interviewing, to the degree that the Church really is not out to make an issue of who you sleep with, but the government is. If you sleep with someone of the same gender, the government caters to you. The Catholic Church would prefer not to hear about it. That’s our crime.

It’s outrageous.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Wisdomseeker, the Church in Washington, DC is not hiring gay married people, or at least not knowingly. The truth is, such private matters are not a factor in hiring. They do not ask you who you sleep with when you come down and sign up for work.

Sounds like don’t ask, don’t tell. Which is all well and good until the unseen “partner” becomes a “husband” and demands medical coverage, etc.

The heavily ironic thing is that the progressives are making personal behavior an official issue here, not the Church. Your personal sexual proclivities remain in the realm of the personal should the Church interview you for a job in a soup kitchen. But they are in the public realm if the government is doing the interviewing, to the degree that the Church really is not out to make an issue of who you sleep with, but the government is. If you sleep with someone of the same gender, the government caters to you. The Catholic Church would prefer not to hear about it. That’s our crime.

While I don’t take as dim a view of the Catholic clergy as Wisdomseeker does, I can certainly appreciate his point that they have dug themsleves into a hole by their varios compromises. The homosexual acticists are never satisfied and, so, one compromise leads to another. It’s simply a matter of when, not whether, the Catholic Church will be so scandalized that it will have to say “no” and all the good will they thought they bought by their previous compromises will be worth nothing.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sounds like don’t ask, don’t tell. Which is all well and good until the unseen “partner” becomes a “husband” and demands medical coverage, etc.

While I don’t take as dim a view of the Catholic clergy as Wisdomseeker does, I can certainly appreciate his point that they have dug themsleves into a hole by their varios compromises. The homosexual acticists are never satisfied and, so, one compromise leads to another. It’s simply a matter of when, not whether, the Catholic Church will be so scandalized that it will have to say “no” and all the good will they thought they bought by their previous compromises will be worth nothing.

I agree. the more they talk the more they dig themselves into a hole.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdomseeker, the Church in Washington, DC is not hiring gay married people, or at least not knowingly. The truth is, such private matters are not a factor in hiring. They do not ask you who you sleep with when you come down and sign up for work.

The heavily ironic thing is that the progressives are making personal behavior an official issue here, not the Church. Your personal sexual proclivities remain in the realm of the personal should the Church interview you for a job in a soup kitchen. But they are in the public realm if the government is doing the interviewing, to the degree that the Church really is not out to make an issue of who you sleep with, but the government is. If you sleep with someone of the same gender, the government caters to you. The Catholic Church would prefer not to hear about it. That’s our crime.

It’s outrageous.

So, it basically saying. dont tell us and all should be alright. but one thing is left, the whole world will know what the CC is doing.

 

[JReducation]

Sounds like don’t ask, don’t tell. Which is all well and good until the unseen “partner” becomes a “husband” and demands medical coverage, etc.

While I don’t take as dim a view of the Catholic clergy as Wisdomseeker does, I can certainly appreciate his point that they have dug themsleves into a hole by their varios compromises. The homosexual acticists are never satisfied and, so, one compromise leads to another. It’s simply a matter of when, not whether, the Catholic Church will be so scandalized that it will have to say “no” and all the good will they thought they bought by their previous compromises will be worth nothing.

What compromises are you talking about? I worked in the Archdiocese of Washington for over 10 years and never saw any moral compromises. Everything was above board. The Church had services to provide. The District of Columbia could not match them. They asked the Church to take on their clients and offered to pay for the services. That’s not a copromise. You don’t turn away the poor, disabled, elderly, sick and the student, because they come referred by the state.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF