Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church

[JReducation]

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.

The policy of the Catholic Church that went all the way up to Cardinal Razinger’s office at the Congregation of the Faith was not this at all. It was every simple. Church hiring policies must comply with the state law as long as they are not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.

When the conflict arose in San Francisco, the now Prefect for the Faith of the entire Catholic Church, was then the Archbishop of San Francisco. He did not pass a “don’t ask don’t tell” rule. He pass a ruling that simply said that employees, including diocesan priests and diocesan deacons, could include any member of their household in their benefit package.

This rule is not in conflict with any Church teaching. What is in conflict with Church teaching would be to give unammried couples the same benefits that you give to married couples. But not extend those same benefits to other family members or household members. If you only give the benefits to couples, then you are equating all couples. If you give the benefits to every eployee, then you are equating employees, not couples. There is nothing immoral about that. Morally, that can be done.

The Church’s rule on justice says that a diocese can treat all employees the same. The only diocesan employees who are not entitled to the same compensation and benefits are those men and women who belong to religious commiunities. We do not get salaries, nor are we entitled to any kind of health insurance, retirement insurance or disability insurance. The religious community and the diocesan bishop negotiate a flat stipend that the bishop gives to the religious order for its services, whether there are 10 religious or 100 religious. We have no right to healthcare, retirement and disability. The religious communities of men and women must raise that money on our own; but we’re ok with that. We understand that we have no rights in any diocese in the Church. We only have rights in our own institutions.

For example, if I were to work for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, I would not be allowed to include the brothes in my house in any benefits package offered by the diocese, because under Church law, it is a violation of justice for a religious to get benefits from the diocese. Only secular priests, secular deacons and lay employees and the members of their household are entitled to those.

As to beneficiaries on such things as life insurance and 401K funds, there is nothing immoral about leaving your money to your domestic partner, because those benefits are not considered to be conjugal benefits. In civil and moral law, you can your cat your benficiary in case you die before you collect your 401K.

The issue is conjugal. As long as the Church does not treat non married people as conjugal partners, she is not violating any moral law. The individuals involved may be doing so, but not the Church. Because the Church is not treating them differently from the way that she treats all other employees.

There are only certain positions for which the Church can discriminate in hiring without legal impunity. You are never allowed to ask someone if they are married; if they are married in the Church; if they have children; their sexual orientation; their political affiliation and for certain positions, you may not ask their religious affiliation. You must be able to prove that the person’s religious affiliation affects the job that you want them to perform. This law is stricter in some states than in others. And is worded a little differently from state to state.

For example, you can discriminate in hiring for schools, because teachers are influencial in the religious formation of students. But if you’re hiring for your Catholic Housing progam, you would have a very difficult time proving to the judge that a Catholic is preferrable over a non Catholic.

Among the services that the Archdiocese offers the poor and the vulnerable, most are services that do not require that the service provider be Catholic. They require that the service provider comply with the rules of the Archdiocese and that he or she not promote anything that is in conflict with Catholic faith. The rule also applies the other way around. The Church cannot demand that those who benefit from its services comply with Catholic teachings. This is not allowed by either the Church or the government. If you have a senior citizen applying for housing in a subsidized Catholic housing program, you cannot rule him/her out because they are non Catholic. If bishops did that they would have the Vatican breathing down their neck, because the Church provides trillions of dollars in services to non Catholics around the world. Just look at the Missionaries of Charity.

What has happened is that with funds running low from the private sector, many diocesan programs depend on contracts to operate. The situation is very complicated, because the laws that are on the table would threaten those services. But it would be the poor who would be punished, not the legislators, if the Archdiocese closes these programs or chooses not to take further referrals from the state.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

I was referring to your descrption here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6166012&postcount=7

And the various comments on the consequences of it.

I have my own concerns about the Catholic Church’s contracts with various cities in that it seems to entangle the Church in city politics.

The essential question becomes: what compromises are you willing to make to avoid turning away the poor, disabled, elderly, sick and the student, not because they come referred by the state but because of the strings that come attached to the Church/city partnership.

Can the Church refuse to place oprhans in homosexual “marriages”, for example, if the adopiton services are performed for the state under contract? Can the Church refuse to provide medical coverage to homosexual “marriage” partners? Or refuse to hire practicing homosexuals in the first place? Can a Catholic hospital, that receives funding from the state, refuse to provide abortion counseling?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What has happened is that with funds running low from the private sector, many diocesan programs depend on contracts to operate. The situation is very complicated, because the laws that are on the table would threaten those services. But it would be the poor who would be punished, not the legislators, if the Archdiocese closes these programs or chooses not to take further referrals from the state.

This is the root of the problem and the true shame. While I am appaled at the idea of the Church becoming a contractor to the state, the main culprit is the paucity of charity funds. That is where attention should be focused.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The policy of the Catholic Church that went all the way up to Cardinal Razinger’s office at the Congregation of the Faith was not this at all. It was every simple. Church hiring policies must comply with the state law as long as they are not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.

When the conflict arose in San Francisco, the now Prefect for the Faith of the entire Catholic Church, was then the Archbishop of San Francisco. He did not pass a “don’t ask don’t tell” rule. He pass a ruling that simply said that employees, including diocesan priests and diocesan deacons, could include any member of their household in their benefit package.

This rule is not in conflict with any Church teaching. What is in conflict with Church teaching would be to give unammried couples the same benefits that you give to married couples. But not extend those same benefits to other family members or household members. If you only give the benefits to couples, then you are equating all couples. If you give the benefits to every eployee, then you are equating employees, not couples. There is nothing immoral about that. Morally, that can be done.

The Church’s rule on justice says that a diocese can treat all employees the same. The only diocesan employees who are not entitled to the same compensation and benefits are those men and women who belong to religious commiunities. We do not get salaries, nor are we entitled to any kind of health insurance, retirement insurance or disability insurance. The religious community and the diocesan bishop negotiate a flat stipend that the bishop gives to the religious order for its services, whether there are 10 religious or 100 religious. We have no right to healthcare, retirement and disability. The religious communities of men and women must raise that money on our own; but we’re ok with that. We understand that we have no rights in any diocese in the Church. We only have rights in our own institutions.

For example, if I were to work for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, I would not be allowed to include the brothes in my house in any benefits package offered by the diocese, because under Church law, it is a violation of justice for a religious to get benefits from the diocese. Only secular priests, secular deacons and lay employees and the members of their household are entitled to those.

As to beneficiaries on such things as life insurance and 401K funds, there is nothing immoral about leaving your money to your domestic partner, because those benefits are not considered to be conjugal benefits. In civil and moral law, you can your cat your benficiary in case you die before you collect your 401K.

The issue is conjugal. As long as the Church does not treat non married people as conjugal partners, she is not violating any moral law. The individuals involved may be doing so, but not the Church. Because the Church is not treating them differently from the way that she treats all other employees.

There are only certain positions for which the Church can discriminate in hiring without legal impunity. You are never allowed to ask someone if they are married; if they are married in the Church; if they have children; their sexual orientation; their political affiliation and for certain positions, you may not ask their religious affiliation. You must be able to prove that the person’s religious affiliation affects the job that you want them to perform. This law is stricter in some states than in others. And is worded a little differently from state to state.

For example, you can discriminate in hiring for schools, because teachers are influencial in the religious formation of students. But if you’re hiring for your Catholic Housing progam, you would have a very difficult time proving to the judge that a Catholic is preferrable over a non Catholic.

Among the services that the Archdiocese offers the poor and the vulnerable, most are services that do not require that the service provider be Catholic. They require that the service provider comply with the rules of the Archdiocese and that he or she not promote anything that is in conflict with Catholic faith. The rule also applies the other way around. The Church cannot demand that those who benefit from its services comply with Catholic teachings. This is not allowed by either the Church or the government. If you have a senior citizen applying for housing in a subsidized Catholic housing program, you cannot rule him/her out because they are non Catholic. *** If bishops did that they would have the Vatican breathing down their neck, because the Church provides trillions of dollars in services to non Catholics around the world. Just look at the Missionaries of Charity.

What has happened is that with funds running low from the private sector, many diocesan programs depend on contracts to operate. The situation is very complicated, because the laws that are on the table would threaten those services. But it would be the poor who would be punished, not the legislators, if the Archdiocese closes these programs or chooses not to take further referrals from the state.***Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I dont quite agree with you but what do i know.

i dont want to be critical of the Church but things are not looking quite right to me. So, the Church provides all this money to non Catholics while many Catholics are starving in many places around the world, Churches are being closed for lack of funds in many places, many Catholic Churches look more like shacks than a Church and the explanation i get for this is because the Church have no money. yet the Church is spending money wiht other things other than in the Church? very interesting situation.

 

[JReducation]

I was referring to your descrption here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6166012&postcount=7

And the various comments on the consequences of it.

Actually, what happened here was a good thing. The Archbishop found a way to keep his employees without having to recognize domestic partnerships as equal to marriage. What he is not allowed to do is to give them equal recognition. He is allowed to give benefits to his employees.

I have my own concerns about the Catholic Church’s contracts with various cities in that it seems to entangle the Church in city politics.

Any private corporation that does business with the government is bound to find itself the victim of governemtn politics. This is not just the Church.

The essential question becomes: what compromises are you willing to make to avoid turning away the poor, disabled, elderly, sick and the student, not because they come referred by the state but because of the strings that come attached to the Church/city partnership.

Bishops can make any compromises they feel are necessary, as long as none of these compromises are in conflict with Church teaching.

Can the Church refuse to place oprhans in homosexual “marriages”, for example, if the adopiton services are performed for the state under contract?

Adoptions are regulated by each state. If the Church runs an adoption service, it must comply with state regulations. If the regulations demand that you not discriminate against same-sex couples, then you cannot refuse. This is why Cardinal O’Malley of Boston closed the adoption services of the Archdiocese. The City of Boston would not grant the Archdiocese a waiver on this regulation. Other bishops have no followed suit.

Can the Church refuse to provide medical coverage to homosexual “marriage” partners?

It depends on the law of the state. If the law says that they cannot refuse to include a same-sex spouse in an insuranc policty, then the Church has to include that person. What Archbishop Levada did was to beat the system at its own game. He opened up the medical insurance policy of the Archdiocese to include any resident in the employee’s home. This way, he is not giving special privileges to same-sex couples of heterosexual couples who are not married. Most diocese are self-insured and they hire an insurance company to run their plan. Therefore, they can create the broad defintions of family plan. If you go through an insurance company a family plan has limitations on who you can include. But if you’re putting up the money, not the insurance company, then the insurance company managing the plan for you does not care you many people you cover. It’s not their money.

Or refuse to hire practicing homosexuals in the first place?

That’s a tricky one and there is no universal answer. The most common legislation is that no one can refuse to hire someone becaue of their sexual orientation. Here is where it get tough. In most states, you may not ask the person about their marital status or sexual preference. You must hire based on your needs and the person’s ability to meet your needs. However, there are certain positions for which you can tighten the requirements, such as teachers. In additon, there are certain postions where you can terminate an employee, not because they are engaged in gay sex. That would be illegal. But you can terminate them, because their lifestyle is in conflict with the values of your organization. You must be able to prove that this lifestyle is in conflict and that it has become public to the people whom you serve. As I said, there are specific wordings in each state. You really have to check with every state and/or county to see what is allowed or not.

Can a Catholic hospital, that receives funding from the state, refuse to provide abortion counseling?

Yes, as long as the funding is not for that purpose. Most Catholic hospitals do not receive funding from the state, unless they are teaching hospitals. In which case the funding is not to the hospital, but the research project and it cannot be used outside of the project being funded.

Other governemnt funds that enter the average Catholic hospital is not legally funding. When state mecaid or Medicare pay a patient’s bill, that is not funding. The money belongs to the patient and it goes where the patient goes. It’s purpose is to pay for services rendered. Funding is free money.

Free money is usually given for research projects. Any other funding is not really free. The community is getting something in return and it’s usually services. This is not in conflict with the Church. Justice demands that if the government has the obligation to pay for services that a patient receives, then the patient has the right to use that money at any hospital. Said in another way, any hospital has the right to bill the government, because the government has the money in place to pay for these services. If you paid your FICA and are retired, the government is not funding your hospital. It’s using your money to pay your medical bills. You and the hospital have a right to expect the governent to do so.

Catholic hospitals are not allowed to accept funds for abortion research or planned parenthood services, because we’re not allowed to provide those services.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

First, we have to understand that even though we are one Catholic Church, we are not one organization. A diocese is one thing and a religious community is another.

I dont quite agree with you but what do i know.

i dont want to be critical of the Church but things are not looking quite right to me. So, the Church provides all this money to non Catholics while many Catholics are starving in many places around the world,

This is not true. The services that the Church provides to the hungry, poor, sick and other vulnerable populations around the world are provided without distinction. Any peson who has a need, Catholic or otherwise, is taken care of as long as the resources are available.

Churches are being closed for lack of funds in many places, many Catholic Churches look more like shacks than a Church and the explanation i get for this is because the Church have no money.

Parish churches are the financial responsibility of the local diocese and its people. The are not the responsibility of the Vatican or of religious orders. Nor are they the responsibility of Catholic Charities International or Pax Caritas.

The budgets for parishes are covered by the parishioners. The services that are provided to the poor are provided by religious. Religious orders have no obligations to parishes. They were not founded for that purpose. Parishes are the obligation of the local people and the secular clergy. The money that religious orders raise goes to the work of the religious order, to care for the older and sick religious and to train the younger religious entering. None of it is allowed to go to the parishes for one simple reason. Because of the vow of poverty, religious are not allowed to divert funds to any other target, except what is within the scope of their mission.

Here is how the vow works. As a religious I don’t own the money. Therefore I have no voice or vote in how the money is directed. In the end, the money must go to the works of my religious community, which may be running a college, missions in Africa, pregnancy centers around the country, hospitals, caring of our elderly and sick, training our younger members, etc.

On the other hand, the money that comes into a parish remains in the parish. It cannot be given to any other organization without the permission of the local bishop. For example, this weekend, those second collections that went to Hait had to be authorized by the local bishops. But they are parish funds.

yet the Church is spending money wiht other things other than in the Church? very interesting situation.

I’m not sure what other things you’re thinking about. If you’re thinking about the homes for the dying that the Missionaries of Charity run, the schools in Africa run by the Christian Brothers, the pregnancy centers run by the Franciscan Brothers of Life, EWTN run by the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, the shelters and soup kitchens run by the Franciscans of the Renewal, the universities run by Dominicans or Jesuits, those are funds that do not come from parishes or from the local diocese, except in those cases where the local diocese actually runs the program.

Most of these programs are not run by the local diocese. The local diocese sponsors them by allowing them to operate as Catholic programs, but they have to raise their own funds. Sometimes, the different groups will be given permission by the pastor or the bishop to make an appeal to people in parishes, such as once a year. That this is not a steady income; therefore, the parishes are not a source of steady income for these ministries.

I work at pregnancy centers that are under the auspices of the local diocese, but get no funds from the diocese. We raise our own funds. We do get permission to go begging to the parishes. But the pastor decides how often we can do this.

The Missionaries of Charity provide millions of dollars in assistance to the poor around the world. Their constitution says that they may not beg, period. They get their funds from private donors who give them the money. They don’t have fund rasing campaigns.

Many teaching orders that have schools in poor regions get their funds from government agencies, the United Way, their own fund raising campaigns and from tuition that they collect at their schools in more afluent countries. The latter is not a lot of money. Often, they don’t get enough tuition money to send to their mission schools.

Like any other organization, the Catholic Church keeps its funds separated. You are not allowed to assign money that is destined for one purpose over to another, unless you have the permission of the bishop or the major religiou superior. This kind of transfer of funds is only done in emergencies, such as is the case with Haiti right now.

When parishes close because of a lack of funds, it’s because the local parishioners cannot afford to maintain the parish, not because money is taken out of their budget to finance something else. It works the other way around, you cannot take funds out of another ministry to finance a parish. Sometimes ministries are closed, because there is not enough income to keep them going.

All that being said, the Church does not allow any organiztion using the name Catholic to discriminate in its services to the poor. The poor of any region are entitled to those services, if they are available. You can’t go into a poor area and set up a soup kitchen just for Catholics or a school just for Catholics. There are certain needs that the Church recognizes as basic human rights. to which all are entitled.

Most of these needs are being met not by parishes, but by religious, often at great sacrifices to themselves and through a lot of hard work by the religious and volunteers to raise these funds.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JimG]

You are never allowed to ask someone if they are married; if they are married in the Church; if they have children; their sexual orientation; their political affiliation and for certain positions, you may not ask their religious affiliation.

To me, there seems to be no good reason not to restrict hiring to practicing Catholics when it is the Catholic Church paying one’s salary. Somehow I can’t image St. Paul hiring a practicing homosexual or a cohabiting couple to perform some non-religious functions for him. Or perhaps this scenario: “I’d like you to meet our parish secretary and her life partner, and this is our accountant and his live-in girlfriend.” Not the sort of thing that would have happened in the parishes of my youth! How much have we caved in to the culture of ‘all lifestyles are equal.’?

 

[JReducation]

To me, there seems to be no good reason not to restrict hiring to practicing Catholics when it is the Catholic Church paying one’s salary. Somehow I can’t image St. Paul hiring a practicing homosexual or a cohabiting couple to perform some non-religious functions for him. Or perhaps this scenario: “I’d like you to meet our parish secretary and her life partner, and this is our accountant and his live-in girlfriend.” Not the sort of thing that would have happened in the parishes of my youth! How much have we caved in to the culture of ‘all lifestyles are equal.’?

If you carefully read what I wrote, that’s not exactly the way it works. The Church has to comply with civil law. You cannot ask any of these questions when hiring, with some exceptions. The exceptions are those where the job requires that one be a Catholic.

That being said, I also said that you can terminate someone’s employment if it does damage to the employer. It is one thing for a person to have their closeted skeletons, whatever these may be: birth control, gay partner, second spouse, another sinful situation and it it quite another to have a situation that is public, as I said before. If the situation is public and does damage to the employer, the Church and any other employer has the right to terminate.

Paul does not quite fit into this picture, because these laws were not in effect in his day. These are not law that the Church has created or under which we have caved. These are the laws of the land. The law says that you may not ask these questions. If you do and someone reports you, you can run the risk of having your institutions closed down by the state. Remember, we have many institutions that require licensing in order to operate.

Most Catholics only see their parish. But there are many other ministries that the Church runs. Most of them require that the individuals who work there have degrees and licenses and the state often requires that the institution have a license or several licenses.

For example, I run pregnancy centers. We had to get licenses from the state for each center. They come every year and audit everything, including our policy books. They require that every brother who does counseling at the centers have at least an MS in Counseling or Social Work or a PhD in Psychology. They require every brother who does pregnancy testing be at lest an RN, and that the brother who is the charge nurse must has a Master’s of Nursing. Everyone of these brothers must take a state licensing examination to get licensed. The brothers who teach Catholic Parenting, must have at least a BA and have passed the state licensing examination in Adult Education. If we do not comply with these demands, we cannot run the pregnancy centers or we would have to cut back on the services that we provide. There is a limited number of services that non licensed persons can offer under the umbrella of ministry. This is just an example of one ministry.

You must even have a license to run a soup kitchen, shelter, or daycare. There are occupancy permits, fire dept permits, zoning permits, etc. Many of our Catholic ministries are run by lay volunteers. It is unfair to them to put their licenses and degrees at risk. If these folks lose their licenses or have their degrees revoked, they may not be able to support their families. If we do not comply with these regulations, we would be unable to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor.

We have to think outside of the parish box… Parishes are certainly our largest ministry, but they are not our only ministries. There are: hospitals, dental clinics, pregnancy centers, colleges, schools, daycare facilities, adult education centers, special education centers, housing facilities for the disabled, sick and elderly. There are seminaries that must also be licensed and accredited. If they are not, we cannot ordain priests or profess religious brothers, because canon law requires that deacons, priests and religious brothes have a degree from an accredited institution. The organizations that do the accrediting are not Catholic. They are a combinatioin of private and state run organizations. If you’re a priest or brother and your degree is not accredited, you may not get certain licenses in the USA. Take for example the sisters who run homes for senior citizens. They must meet all kinds of legal requirements or be closed down.

Bishops and major superiors of religious men and major superiors of religious women must negotiate with the state. There is no other choice in our contry. It is a secular government. In some countries, these laws are not in place. But in the USA they are and unfortunately, they seem to apply them most rigorously to private organizations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mystagogia]

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.

Huh?

No, the Catholic Church is not burying its head in the sand on this. Far from it. The Archdiocese of Washington, DC has been challenging the bill very openly and imploring the council to compromise on the language.

Every effort for compromise and mutual understanding has been made by the Catholic Church. It has been rebuffed every step of the way. The secular forces behind the Washington, DC city council just don’t give a damn what anybody else thinks. They view themselves as superior on moral issues, they mock the Church particularly, and they are quite pleased with themselves for being so intractable regarding the Church’s requests.

Shooting down an archbishop’s request is a point of honor among them.

I dare you to show it otherwise.

In Washington, DC, the only reason the archbishop was invited to plead his case was so that the city council couled mock it and sleaze the archbishop in the press.

That’s the set-up. That’s the lay of the land.

Again, the average person on the streets of DC doesn’t give a damn about gay marriage, and he’s most likely against it. This is not a popular movement, this is an elite movement, from a group of people who are trying to shape morality. And they hate the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church tries to, well, “shape morality.”

 

[JReducation]

I have to agree with some of what Mystagogia has said. Having been sattioned in the Archdiocese of Washington for many years in the past, I know that the Archdiocese and the City Council always had a very good working relationship. It suprises me that the current City Council is being so difficult on this issue. Even under Marion Barry, the City Council and the Archdiocese joined together to face some very tough social issues: illegal immigration, poverty, crime, the education of the disabled, shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, group homes for children and teens, hospice care, housing for the disabled, housing for the poor and for senior citizens, literacy programs, free medical clinics for the poor, home for people with AIDS.

The communities at the forefront of these projects were the Capuchin Franciscans, Carmelite Sisters of Charity, Little Sisters of the Poor, Missionaries of Charity, and the Daughters of Charity. Brother Sean O’Malley, who would later become Cardinal Sean, was the Archdocesan Director of Social Ministries and he brokered all of these deals with the City Council. After he left, the programs remained in place, providing most support for the citizens of that city, Catholics and non Catholics. These programs were financed by Catholics and non Catholics. The city paid for services that they purchased, which were many, especially in the areas of the disabled, healthcare and housing for seniors. Even though the Catholics in the city were a minority, the Church provided many services to the dominant majority, which were Black Protestants. Black Catholics held positions of leadership in the Archdiocese. This can’t be an issue about race or differences in religion.

This is not a city that has too many sources of income, because it is not an industrial city. It is a government and education city. It’s two largest employers are the Federal Governemnt and the colleges and universities in the city of which there are at least 10. I can’t see the hand of Corporate America in this either.

I’m trying to figure out where this change of heart toward the Catholic Church has come from. Even the gay community was very friendly toward the Catholics. The Catholics started Courage, the first gay ministry approved by the Vatican. Mother Teresa opened the city’s first home for the victims of AIDS. Catholic doctors and nurses provided free services to the Whitman Walker Clinics.

I can understand many gay people being angry at the Catholics and feeling betrayed by their friends when the Church put its foot down on same-sex marriage. But the attitude was not one of vengance. No one spoke in a manner that sounded as if they were out to get back at the Church, not among the gay community. They felt angry and often betrayed, because many confused the Church’s ministry and welcome with approval of a lifestyle. But there were also many well educated gay men and women in the City who understood, even though they disagreed.

My opinion is that something else is going on here. The City Council has never refused to talk with the local bishops and Catholic program directors. The talks were always respectful. There was usually some kind of agreement that was mutually satisfactory. This begs several questions. What’s the agenda and whose agenda is it?

I don’t think that we need to scrutinize the Archdiocese. Unless we suspect that the Archdiocese did something that turned the City Concil against it. But no one has accused the Archdiocese of doing that either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mystagogia]

Yes, in Washington, DC the question is what do you do when you lose.

The archdiocese has put up a good fight. They have lost it, it seems.

So, then what?

I’m on board with JimG’s exortation to pull out and slash and burn. I say that because the question does revolve around philosohy. Yes, everybody does want to serve the poor. But, can you serve them when doing so demands that you trounce Christian principles?

No, you should not serve them in that circumstance. We are called to serve our fellow man, but not if that means selling ourselves down the river. When the world requires us to redefine marriage in order to continue humanitarian efforts then, sad to say, it is time to discontinue humanitarian efforts. We are in no position to redefine a sacrament. Sorry.

The tragedy that must result is wholly theirs. If these legions of multiculturalists can’t figure out how to accommodate Catholics who have been in their midst from day one, the blame is theirs.

The destruction they wreak is theirs.

Hold them to it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When the world requires us to redefine marriage in order to continue humanitarian efforts then, sad to say, it is time to discontinue humanitarian efforts. We are in no position to redefine a sacrament.

Amen.

However, since the secular world does not relate to sacraments, it’s important to refuse to accept an entirely fabricated definition of “rights.” It is rights where the battle is on, not sacraments. What they want to do is to let Catholics keep their sacraments, whereas in the civil order “rights” will determine civil marriage access. Wherever it is merely assumed (or is unopposed) that marriage is a universal right for any orientation, the legal and political institutions will wholly embrace the effort to put gay marriage on the fast track.

Our terminology is useless outside Catholicism. Gay weddings are not occurring in Catholic settings.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, in Washington, DC the question is what do you do when you lose.

The destruction they wreak is theirs.

Hold them to it.

This is not about serving the poor. It’s aboiut closing down the Archdiocese. Do they fire every lay employee and every secular priest in the Archdiocese? Keep in mind that I don’t know all of the ins and outs of this law. I don’t live there any loner.

But if the law says that whatever benefits you give to your employees you must extend to same-sex couples and you decide that to avoid this, you are not going to hire any lay people, then who runs the diocese? There are more lay people that working in most dioceses than their are diocesan priests. Go to any chancery and you’ll find more lay people employed than clerics. and religious. That would mean terminating every lay employee of the Archdiocese including: those who work in the chancery; teachers in Catholic schools; parish employees, including your cleaning lady; parish cooks; lay hospital employees; lay employees at the nursing homes; and so forth.

If you get rid of all those lay people, who is going to do their job? How many schools can remain open without lay teachers? How can you keep the two Catholic hosptals in Washington open without lay staff? If you close these schools and hospitals, how do you pay the mortgage on them? Currently there are two nursing homes in the Archdiocese. If you get rid of the lay nurses, who does the job? Trust me, these are huge homes.

How do you run all of the Catholic colleges and universities without a lay staff? This would involve closing down the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Catholic University of America (one of the two pontifical universities in this country), the John Paul II Center (there goes EWTN’s Washington site), the USCCB, which is two blocks west of the Shrine, 40 religious houses of study (where do we send those men?), the Ukranian Catholic chancery (across the street from Catholic University), the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land (the only source of income in the USA for the Commissereate of the Holy Land); the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration; the Vistition Monastery; Georgetown University; Marymount University, Trinity University; Dominican University; the National Dicoesan Seminary; Kennedy Institute; and the Cathedral.

Nothing in the above paragraph are services to the poor. They are part of the infrastructure of that diocese staffed by lay people. If you terminate these people, you have no one to run your infrastructure unless you pull all of your priests and deacons from your parishes and close the parishes.

If you stop all benefits for the lay employees, then you have to stop all benefits for the secular/diocesan priests. If you give benefits to the diocesan priests (religious are not entitled to any) and you do not give them to the lay employees, you are out of compliance with the law. Diocesan priests are canonically and civilly employees. If they get insurance, disability, retirement, life insurance, 401K and severence packages and the other employees do not, then it’s discrimination. You’ll end up in court and you will lose. Diocesan priests are on payroll and the IRS knows that they are, becaues they pay taxes like everyone else.

If you stop his benefits, then your parish priest will resign. Priests cannot afford to live on their salaries alone. The average priest makes less than 20K per year and he has to pay taxes and FICA out of that. He has to pay full social security, because dioceses do not pay social security for priests. This would put priests in the difficult position of looking for jobs in other dioceses or having to become religious. The third option would be to have a second job outside of the Church to subsidize their income. But that would lead to the same complaint that people have about religious staffing parishes. They are not available 24/7.

The other option is to raise their salaries, but you still have a shortage of human resources to run your diocese. We’re not talking about serving the poor. Hypothetically, we just closed down all of those services. We’re talking about the bare minimum required to keep a diocese that size up and running.

The only Catholic institution that is not affected by this is the Nuciature, because it is an embassy. Embassies are not bound by local laws.

The other problem for this diocese is that it covers two jurisdictions. It covers all of Washington, DC and the two largest counties in Maryland (Prince George and Montgomery). It has to deal with the government of Maryland as well. Most of the infrastructure of the Archdiocese is in Washington, DC and all of the infrastructure of the Catholic Church in America is in Washington, DC, as are the two of the Vatican’s most prestigious institutions in the USA. All of them are heavily staffed by lay people.

This raises another question. Where do these foks go for jobs? The Catholic Church cannot walk away. It must stay in there and deal with the City Council until it gets some kind of satisfaction. The most complicated part of this is that the USCCB and the Vatican have heavily staffed facilities in Washington, but the responsibility of defending them belongs to the local Catholics. The local Catholics are not only fighting for their parishes, they are fighting for the Vatican’s and the USCCB’s operations as well.

There are three Archdioceses in the USA that have very serious responsibilities to the Vatican: Washington, DC; New York City; and Baltimore. There are big Vatican interests in all three. The Vatican finances them, but someone has to oversee them and protect them at the local level. That falls on the local bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Amen.

However, since the secular world does not relate to sacraments, it’s important to refuse to accept an entirely fabricated definition of “rights.” It is rights where the battle is on, not sacraments. What they want to do is to let Catholics keep their sacraments, whereas in the civil order “rights” will determine civil marriage access. Wherever it is merely assumed (or is unopposed) that marriage is a universal right for any orientation, the legal and political institutions will wholly embrace the effort to put gay marriage on the fast track.

Our terminology is useless outside Catholicism. Gay weddings are not occurring in Catholic settings.

As I understand the legislation (correct me if I’m wrong), the biggest problem is not same-sex marriage. It’s the wording in the law regarding benefits. In the end, if the laws on benefits were left untouched as is the case in San Francisco and Boston, you let the state do and say whatever it wants. You can’t keep arguing with someone who does not want to hear what you have to say.

But the law is about more than allowing gay marriage. It’s about changing the laws that govern employee benefits. In that regard, Boston and San Franciscan were much smarter than Washington. They wrote the law and used “domestic partners” and did not require the employers to write them up as married in their benefits packages. The state was happy as long as people go the insurance and as long as the employees could pick their partners as beneficiaries, even though the dioceses also included extended family members in those packages, to avoid singling out unmarried couples.

But the proposed law in DC specifically wants to use the term same-sex couples, spouse, family and the Church cannot do that part. The most the Church can do, according to Cardinal Levada is domestic residents (that can include your cat). Why DC does not want to change the terminology is beyond me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PA650]

As I understand the legislation (correct me if I’m wrong), the biggest problem is not same-sex marriage. It’s the wording in the law regarding benefits. In the end, if the laws on benefits were left untouched as is the case in San Francisco and Boston, you let the state do and say whatever it wants. You can’t keep arguing with someone who does not want to hear what you have to say.

But the law is about more than allowing gay marriage. It’s about changing the laws that govern employee benefits. In that regard, Boston and San Franciscan were much smarter than Washington. They wrote the law and used “domestic partners” and did not require the employers to write them up as married in their benefits packages. The state was happy as long as people go the insurance and as long as the employees could pick their partners as beneficiaries, even though the dioceses also included extended family members in those packages, to avoid singling out unmarried couples.

But the proposed law in DC specifically wants to use the term same-sex couples, spouse, family and the Church cannot do that part. The most the Church can do, according to Cardinal Levada is domestic residents (that can include your cat). Why DC does not want to change the terminology is beyond me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Perhaps the heart of the matter is that the City Council of D.C. wishes to alter the Church by whatever means possible. Thus, similar to the proposed legislation in the State of Connecticut by two legislators that would have interfered with the governing roles of bishops and pastors.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Great Post, #34. Yes, it’s very important when fighting the opposition to be wordsmiths. Can’t agree more. In legal circles, it’s all about the terminology, and this is the most litigious society ever.

There was a great segment on EWTN radio last week: I think it was the Business program on Friday or Saturday. I’m not sure if it was EWTN or just my local feed; hopefully EWTN. The Catholic business consultant (forget his name) was pointing out the almost frightening volume of contemporary cases of unique “ethical” claims based on a complaint of a “right” without former precedent, but asserted in the case. But this is why I harp so much on CAF about being vigilant regarding the “rights” language in the secular arena in general. In the secular realm, rights = ethics/morality. So if I can establish a “right” out of my “want” (what the business consultant was saying), then my “want” becomes a “good,” validated by secular society. And then it is secular society that is perceived as taking the high ground of the "good," to which the Catholic world is opposed, and thus “evil.”

So in addition to continuing to fight the artificial notion of marriage as a civil right born from natural law, we also need to fight affirmatively on the other front: that is, the rights of children, pointing out that children have an intrinsic right, wherever possible, to both a (female) mother and a (male) father.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If you carefully read what I wrote, that’s not exactly the way it works. The Church has to comply with civil law. You cannot ask any of these questions when hiring, with some exceptions. The exceptions are those where the job requires that one be a Catholic.

That being said, I also said that you can terminate someone’s employment if it does damage to the employer. It is one thing for a person to have their closeted skeletons, whatever these may be: birth control, gay partner, second spouse, another sinful situation and it it quite another to have a situation that is public, as I said before. If the situation is public and does damage to the employer, the Church and any other employer has the right to terminate.

Paul does not quite fit into this picture, because these laws were not in effect in his day. These are not law that the Church has created or under which we have caved. These are the laws of the land. The law says that you may not ask these questions. If you do and someone reports you, you can run the risk of having your institutions closed down by the state. Remember, we have many institutions that require licensing in order to operate.

Most Catholics only see their parish. But there are many other ministries that the Church runs. Most of them require that the individuals who work there have degrees and licenses and the state often requires that the institution have a license or several licenses.

For example, I run pregnancy centers. We had to get licenses from the state for each center. They come every year and audit everything, including our policy books. They require that every brother who does counseling at the centers have at least an MS in Counseling or Social Work or a PhD in Psychology. They require every brother who does pregnancy testing be at lest an RN, and that the brother who is the charge nurse must has a Master’s of Nursing. Everyone of these brothers must take a state licensing examination to get licensed. The brothers who teach Catholic Parenting, must have at least a BA and have passed the state licensing examination in Adult Education. If we do not comply with these demands, we cannot run the pregnancy centers or we would have to cut back on the services that we provide. There is a limited number of services that non licensed persons can offer under the umbrella of ministry. This is just an example of one ministry.

You must even have a license to run a soup kitchen, shelter, or daycare. There are occupancy permits, fire dept permits, zoning permits, etc. Many of our Catholic ministries are run by lay volunteers. It is unfair to them to put their licenses and degrees at risk. If these folks lose their licenses or have their degrees revoked, they may not be able to support their families. If we do not comply with these regulations, we would be unable to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor.

We have to think outside of the parish box… Parishes are certainly our largest ministry, but they are not our only ministries. There are: hospitals, dental clinics, pregnancy centers, colleges, schools, daycare facilities, adult education centers, special education centers, housing facilities for the disabled, sick and elderly. There are seminaries that must also be licensed and accredited. If they are not, we cannot ordain priests or profess religious brothers, because canon law requires that deacons, priests and religious brothes have a degree from an accredited institution. The organizations that do the accrediting are not Catholic. They are a combinatioin of private and state run organizations. If you’re a priest or brother and your degree is not accredited, you may not get certain licenses in the USA. Take for example the sisters who run homes for senior citizens. They must meet all kinds of legal requirements or be closed down.

Bishops and major superiors of religious men and major superiors of religious women must negotiate with the state. There is no other choice in our contry. It is a secular government. In some countries, these laws are not in place. But in the USA they are and unfortunately, they seem to apply them most rigorously to private organizations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

well explained. but the issue still remains. what is the CC? is it supposed to be just one more institution in the world or is it one institution which is supposed to be different from the world? is she supposed to enforce the Laws of God or is she supposed to just obey the state whatever laws are made? you know what i mean. little by little the secular world are making laws that are contrary to God’s laws. yet, i hear all kinds of excuse to why is the Church abiding by the laws of the land and not the laws of God. do you wonder why the Church is in so much pain? does any of the leaders of the Church ever think about repentence and penance for the wrongs done against God and His teachings? just a thought.

i dont claim to know everything but we can all see the stage of the Church today. yet the leaders go around unrepentante and laughing like everything is good.

 

[wisdomseeker]

As I understand the legislation (correct me if I’m wrong), the biggest problem is not same-sex marriage. It’s the wording in the law regarding benefits. In the end, if the laws on benefits were left untouched as is the case in San Francisco and Boston, you let the state do and say whatever it wants. You can’t keep arguing with someone who does not want to hear what you have to say.

But the law is about more than allowing gay marriage. It’s about changing the laws that govern employee benefits. In that regard, Boston and San Franciscan were much smarter than Washington. They wrote the law and used “domestic partners” and did not require the employers to write them up as married in their benefits packages. The state was happy as long as people go the insurance and as long as the employees could pick their partners as beneficiaries, even though the dioceses also included extended family members in those packages, to avoid singling out unmarried couples.

But the proposed law in DC specifically wants to use the term same-sex couples, spouse, family and the Church cannot do that part. The most the Church can do, according to Cardinal Levada is domestic residents (that can include your cat). Why DC does not want to change the terminology is beyond me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Again changing terminology is not going to make less of a sin in the eyes of God, is it? if the Church accept same sex partners or the Church accept same sex marriage what difference does it make? these are two people who live together and it is contrary to what God wants. how is the CC involved with these people? it does not make any sense. she is no different from any other company running a business in this world. is it? the CC is supposed to be a religious institution to teach people the laws of God. at least that is what i thought it was.

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, in Washington, DC the question is what do you do when you lose.

The archdiocese has put up a good fight. They have lost it, it seems.

So, then what?

I’m on board with JimG’s exortation to pull out and slash and burn. I say that because the question does revolve around philosohy. Yes, everybody does want to serve the poor. But, can you serve them when doing so demands that you trounce Christian principles?

No, you should not serve them in that circumstance. We are called to serve our fellow man, but not if that means selling ourselves down the river. When the world requires us to redefine marriage in order to continue humanitarian efforts then, sad to say, it is time to discontinue humanitarian efforts. We are in no position to redefine a sacrament. Sorry.

The tragedy that must result is wholly theirs. If these legions of multiculturalists can’t figure out how to accommodate Catholics who have been in their midst from day one, the blame is theirs.

The destruction they wreak is theirs.

Hold them to it.

:clapping:

 

[JReducation]

Again changing terminology is not going to make less of a sin in the eyes of God, is it? if the Church accept same sex partners or the Church accept same sex marriage what difference does it make? these are two people who live together and it is contrary to what God wants. how is the CC involved with these people? it does not make any sense. she is no different from any other company running a business in this world. is it? the CC is supposed to be a religious institution to teach people the laws of God. at least that is what i thought it was.

If the Church gives benefits to its employees and allows the employees to share their benefits with anyone they choose, the Church is not violating the law of God. A violation of the law of God would be if the Church gave benefits to married couples of either sex and not to single couples. If she did that, then she would equating the two couples as being the same.

What Cardinal Levada did was to give everyone the same benefits. Given that he is the chief theologian of the Catholic Church and that his policy was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger who was then the chief theologian, I would say that it is not contrary to the law of God to do this. Let’s not forget that Cardinal Levada was hand picked by Pope Benedict to take his job as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith.

This issue is not about what the Church teaches. That has not changed. This issue is about a law that wants to corner all private organization and businesses to provide marrital benefits for same-sex couples. The Church cannot do that. But she can give benefits to all her employees and let them select their beneficiaries. An employeed would be able to select his cat as the heair to his life insurance plan. The problem, as I understand it, is that the City Council does not want to change the wording in the law.

In Boston and San Francisco they changed the wording in the law to domestic partners. Cardinal Levada and Cardinal Ratzinger said that domestic partners includes everyone who lives in your home and that you have the right to name any of these people as your beneficiaries. Washington seems to be insisting on the word spouse and that’s where the Church cannot yield. So the Church is not doing what you think. She is not being just another corporation, though de facto she is a corporation. In fact, she is a sole-prioprietary corporation., also called an S-Corporation in law. But that’s another thread.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF