Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church

[sedonaman]

If the church receives public money, it should have to live by the public’s rules.

Why? ACORN doesn’t have to.

 

[Corki]

Two suggestions:

First, can the Archdiocese choose to give benefits to its employees ONLY, and not to spouses, partners and dependents? If this can be done, then problem solved. Only the working or retired employee can get benefits paid by the Church, not any gay partner. Unfortunately, spouses and children will have to be excluded, but at least the Archdicocese will be able to keep operating. Is there a legal obligation to provide benefits to dependents and others? With the savings reached by covering less benefits, the Diocese could pay higher salaries so its employees can cover their families by themselves.

Yes, legally the Archdiocese could do this but it would be a poor solution. First of all, they would have to raise salaries by much more (maybe double) than the cost of benefits since it is more expensive to insure individuals than groups and to be equal, the AD would have to “gross up” the amount to account to the tax implications.

Second, while it is seen as equitable to offer family health care to all employees even if it is more of a benefit to a person with a family than a single employee, it would not be viewed as equitable to pay an employee with a family many thousands more in salary a year than a single employee.

Third it would be an HR nightmare. The social service jobs are hard enough to recruit for without compromising the benefits package that could be offered.

I think the AD would rather just decline city contracts and provide services to the poor directly. The end result would be more people helped and the archdioces would not have to compromise on Church teaching. The rule in DC only applies to organizations who get city social service contracts. Just cut out the middle man (the city).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think the AD would rather just decline city contracts and provide services to the poor directly. The end result would be more people helped and the archdioces would not have to compromise on Church teaching.

See, this is the obvious solution! And what the Catholic Church needs to do is place a greater emphasis on internal fundraising instead of lobbying for government handouts, with all the strings that come attached with that.

 

[JReducation]

See, this is the obvious solution! And what the Catholic Church needs to do is place a greater emphasis on internal fundraising instead of lobbying for government handouts, with all the strings that come attached with that.

Let’s slow down a minute. We’re not lobbying for government handouts. What we do is make use of what is available to citizens. I’ll give you an example. Many states have funds available for the education of pregnant mothers. If the Catholic Church provides those services through our pregnancy centers, then those women who come to our centers are entitled to be served with that money. If you don’t apply for it, it disappears into a black hole. Government has a way of making money disappear. We all know that. Right now, there are millions of tax dollars that are not being used, because people don’t know that they are available and the government seems to apply the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to public funds.

What many organizations do, not just Catholic ones, is apply for these funds that are available for services to specific groups. A lot of times these monies do come with strings attached that we can’t comply with. But there are other funds that do not have such strings. They may have other strings, but not the kind that is a cause for moral conflict.

But funds are not the only problem here. They are a big problem, because of the economic times in which we live, but there are other problems here too. There is the issue of licensing, certifications, permits and so forth. Many of the services that the Catholic Church provides require that we meet these legal regulations. If the state is going to say that we do not meet their regulations and can’t be licensed, then we’re in trouble.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it’s a good example. There are politicians who want to deny doctors and nurses their licenses if they refuse to provide abortion, birth control and other “reproductive health services” as they call it. How can we run Catholic healthcare without licensed professionals?

The big question on everyone’s mind is, “How far can city, county, state and federal goverment go?”

All this being said, Washington, DC may be in for the same rude awakening that the City of Boston had. They would not play ball with the Cardinal on same-sex adoptions. The Cardinal closed the Catholic adoption agency. This threw a bunch of kids into the hands of city welfare system that they couldn’t handle. They didn’t have the staff. Something similar happened in Florida with foster care. Catholic Charities stopped doing adoptions and foster care, because of the regulations. A short while later we heard on the news that children in the foster cate system were missing. They were not literally missing. They were missing in the sense that social workers were not keeping up and some kids were forgotten.

When governments make these rules they don’t often think ahead of how many people are going to be hurt, not just our employees, but the people whom we serve.

Of course there are the other Church organizations in DC that do not provide direct services to the poor, but are necessary for the Church. As someone posted above, it would be an HR nightmare to figure out how you are going to pay professors at our pontifical university, which is located in DC, the USCCB, the National Shrine, all the other Catholic colleges and universities in the city, the catholic schools, the parish employees, the chancery employees and so forth.

The poor maintenance person who gets a basic wage, but has good benefits provided by the Catholic Church can lose those benefits, because of these regulations. How fair is that to them? These are people who are not rich and cannot afford private insurance. Their work is necessary to keep things going. They are not indispensable employees, nor should they be made to suffer hardships.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Corki]

There are politicians who want to deny doctors and nurses their licenses if they refuse to provide abortion, birth control and other “reproductive health services” as they call it. How can we run Catholic healthcare without licensed professionals?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This sounds like you are saying that Catholic doctors and nurses should capitulate and provide abortion, birth control and other services in order to keep thier licences and sustain Catholic healthcare!

This is exactly why my son who is entering college with pre-med as his major believes he will not be able to attend medical school in this country. We are heading for Catholic abortuaries and no option but doctors who are paid murderers.

 

[JReducation]

This sounds like you are saying that Catholic doctors and nurses should capitulate and provide abortion, birth control and other services in order to keep thier licences and sustain Catholic healthcare!

Why would I say something like that? I run pregnancy centers as a ministry. I’m putting foward the fact that we can’t just pull away from the state and say, “Let them do what they want.” If we do that. Then we are in serious trouble. We have to challenge the state.

This is exactly why my son who is entering college with pre-med as his major believes he will not be able to attend medical school in this country. We are heading for Catholic abortuaries and no option but doctors who are paid murderers.

We’re not heading in the direction. But we may be heading to closing our hospitals, if we do not lobby for legislation that is consistent with moral truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JimG]

We’re not heading in the direction. But we may be heading to closing our hospitals, if we do not lobby for legislation that is consistent with moral truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, this is imperative. Most doctors really don’t want to do abortions, for example. But if learning abortion is made a requirement of attending medical school, Catholic students could not enroll without compromising their faith. I talked to med student the other day who said that she would like to go into ob-gyn, but will go into family practice instead because of the moral pitfalls that accompany ob-gyn training.

 

[RobbyS]

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

Thanks. Sounds about right.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The big question on everyone’s mind is, “How far can city, county, state and federal goverment go?”

This is not the question on my mind. I think it is the wrong question.

Catholics must assume that the city, state, and federal governments are not going to faithful to Catholic dogma and, indeed, are very likely to head off in a totally different direction, e.g. gay marriage.

The question is given the tendency of a divergence between temporal and Catholic moral views, what should the Catholic Church (and it’s various institutions) be doing?

When I discuss this with others (mostly non-Catholics but also Catholics) the tendency is to make two levels of claims against the Church: the first is that if the Catholic Church is performing services for the city or state then it should follow the state/city rules for subcontractors (otherwise known as strings). The second is, of course, that above and beyond that the state/city may impose rules for those conducting certain actions (e.g. your discussion of licensing). For example, the state might require that all adoptions agencies give equal consideration to homosexual and heterosexual marriages in placing children.

Now it’s farily obvious that one can avoid the first type simply by not doing business with the state/city.

But there is very great potential to influence the latter simply by performing the function independently. If, for example, the Catholic Church is the main orphanage, and if its’ operationg on it’s own funding and volunteers, then voters and politicians will be far less inclined to impose rules that might conflict with Church teachings.

*Let’s slow down a minute. We’re not lobbying for government handouts. What we do is make use of what is available to citizens. I’ll give you an example. Many states have funds available for the education of pregnant mothers. If the Catholic Church provides those services through our pregnancy centers, then those women who come to our centers are entitled to be served with that money. If you don’t apply for it, it disappears into a black hole. Government has a way of making money disappear. We all know that. Right now, there are millions of tax dollars that are not being used, because people don’t know that they are available and the government seems to apply the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to public funds.
Lobbying is perhaps too strong a word but several examples come to mind (note, that it’s not only the state that attaches strings, sometimes non-Catholic charities do as well). Catholic hospitals (and the advocacy of socialized health care) and Catholic schools (and the advocacy of vouchers).

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it’s a good example. There are politicians who want to deny doctors and nurses their licenses if they refuse to provide abortion, birth control and other “reproductive health services” as they call it. How can we run Catholic healthcare without licensed professionals?

This is a great example and it will require a strong argument for leaving Catholic hospitals alone or, barring that, hardball as with MA. If, for example, a state enacts a law which requires all doctors to provide “reproductive health services” then Catholic hospitals must be prepared to shut down their hosptitals. That’s a far more potent threat if a) it happens at least once, and b) people are aware of the burden that will fall on the state if the threat is carried out.

The more money and volunteering efforts flow through the Catholic institutions, the stronger will be their hand in these moral battles. The more Catholic institutions are dependent on the state and it’s taxes, the more tempted politicians and activists will be to impose social experiments on them.

All this being said, Washington, DC may be in for the same rude awakening that the City of Boston had. They would not play ball with the Cardinal on same-sex adoptions. The Cardinal closed the Catholic adoption agency. This threw a bunch of kids into the hands of city welfare system that they couldn’t handle. They didn’t have the staff. Something similar happened in Florida with foster care. Catholic Charities stopped doing adoptions and foster care, because of the regulations. A short while later we heard on the news that children in the foster cate system were missing. They were not literally missing. They were missing in the sense that social workers were not keeping up and some kids were forgotten.

It’s a shame that these kids become pawns in the great battles but hopefully it will only need to happen once or twice to send a message. Cities and states are in financial trouble and the ones in the greatest trouble are those most inclined to social experimentation.

My favorite example is Catholic schools. Catholics should be running the inner city schools. I doubt there are many parents would would rater send their children to an inner city public school than a Catholic school. But doing that right would require independent funding, not vouchers, and some courageous Catholics to staff it.

 

[JReducation]

This is not the question on my mind. I think it is the wrong question.

Catholics must assume that the city, state, and federal governments are not going to faithful to Catholic dogma and, indeed, are very likely to head off in a totally different direction, e.g. gay marriage.

The question is given the tendency of a divergence between temporal and Catholic moral views, what should the Catholic Church (and it’s various institutions) be doing?

When I discuss this with others (mostly non-Catholics but also Catholics) the tendency is to make two levels of claims against the Church: the first is that if the Catholic Church is performing services for the city or state then it should follow the state/city rules for subcontractors (otherwise known as strings). The second is, of course, that above and beyond that the state/city may impose rules for those conducting certain actions (e.g. your discussion of licensing). For example, the state might require that all adoptions agencies give equal consideration to homosexual and heterosexual marriages in placing children.

Now it’s farily obvious that one can avoid the first type simply by not doing business with the state/city.

But there is very great potential to influence the latter simply by performing the function independently. If, for example, the Catholic Church is the main orphanage, and if its’ operationg on it’s own funding and volunteers, then voters and politicians will be far less inclined to impose rules that might conflict with Church teachings.

Let’s slow down a minute. We’re not lobbying for government handouts. What we do is make use of what is available to citizens. I’ll give you an example. Many states have funds available for the education of pregnant mothers. If the Catholic Church provides those services through our pregnancy centers, then those women who come to our centers are entitled to be served with that money. If you don’t apply for it, it disappears into a black hole. Government has a way of making money disappear. We all know that. Right now, there are millions of tax dollars that are not being used, because people don’t know that they are available and the government seems to apply the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to public funds.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Catholics should be running the inner city schools.

I assume you mean inner city Catholic schools, no?

(Perhaps I didn’t understand your meaning.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Some of your ideas are good. But there are many services that the Church provides that are regulated by local, state or federal laws, regardless of who funds them. Adoption is an excellent example. You cannot provide private adoption services without state licensing. These services are regulated by the different department of social services and the courts. Like this, I can cite many federal and state laws that apply, regardless of funding sources.

We have to ensure that the state protects the rights of citizens to exercise their religious beliefs without interference and regulations that are in conflict with those beliefs.

Right. All I’m suggesting is that the Catholic Church would have far more influence if it were perceived and acknowledged as providing critical services (e.g. to the poor) and not as being just another contractor to the city/state.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by JReducation

There are politicians who want to deny doctors and nurses their licenses if they refuse to provide abortion, birth control and other “reproductive health services” as they call it. How can we run Catholic healthcare without licensed professionals?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF **

What i find so dangerous is that these laws are being made without any regard for our Religions believes. with so many out there willing to provide services, cater to everyone, why are laws being made to include everyone? this is wrong and needs to stop. the CC is not the only one providing services, others can do it. why can they just leave the Church to herself? so we can practice our Faith according to God’s Law and not by man’s laws. this is going too far. they must recognized the Church as a separated institution not subject to evil practices. they are trying to subject the Church to the world and i hope our defenders of the Faith are very aware of this.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I assume you mean inner city Catholic schools, no? (Perhaps I didn’t understand your meaning.)

I should probably start a new thread on this but this is one of my hobby horses.

I do mean schools run by Catholics according to Catholic rules but I don’t simply mean schools that service the dioces but, rather, schools that serve Catholics and non-Catholics alike. (Where I went to high school we had a few Muslims and they were required to attend Mass with the rest of us though, obviously, not required to take Holy Communion.)

You could begin simply enough by expanding existing parachocial schools (e.g. in nominally Catholic areas like Los Angeles). Just pump in Catholic money to fund students who can’t otherwise afford parochial school. Steal the most serious students/famillies from public schools by offering a better, free alternative.

Then deal with the flood of applicants by building more schools. Empty the public schools and, then, when the public schools are empty (which occurs when they are consolidated) buy or lease them.

Repeat until Catholics run all the inner city schools.

 

[Corki]

Yes, this is imperative. Most doctors really don’t want to do abortions, for example. But if learning abortion is made a requirement of attending medical school, Catholic students could not enroll without compromising their faith. I talked to med student the other day who said that she would like to go into ob-gyn, but will go into family practice instead because of the moral pitfalls that accompany ob-gyn training.

Even family practice might not be safe. If a family practice physician sees any woman post adolecence he/she could be required to prescribe birth control and refer for abortions.

New York came “this close” to requiring that all medical school students receive hands-on training in abortions. This was to be part of the basic curriculum, long before specialties are chosen. So even a dermatologist or a orthopedic surgeon would have had to partcipate in at least one abortion. This makes me sick.

It’s not just about closing “our” Catholic hospitals. It’s about Catholics being forced to abandon healthcare entirely to those who do not value life.

 

[Corki]

I do mean schools run by Catholics according to Catholic rules but I don’t simply mean schools that service the dioces but, rather, schools that serve Catholics and non-Catholics alike. (Where I went to high school we had a few Muslims and they were required to attend Mass with the rest of us though, obviously, not required to take Holy Communion.)

The two are not mutually exclusive. In our diocese, the inner city schools have more non-Catholic than Catholic students. They are diocisan schools attached, usually, to a parish.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Even family practice might not be safe. If a family practice physician sees any woman post adolecence he/she could be required to prescribe birth control and refer for abortions. New York came “this close” to requiring that all medical school students receive hands-on training in abortions. This was to be part of the basic curriculum, long before specialties are chosen. So even a dermatologist or a orthopedic surgeon would have had to partcipate in at least one abortion. This makes me sick. It’s not just about closing “our” Catholic hospitals. It’s about Catholics being forced to abandon healthcare entirely to those who do not value life.

The bottom line is that Catholics have to expect the worst from “secular” society today and prepare accordingly for moral battle. The recent Manhattan Declaration was a step in the right direction.

It simply will no longer suffice for Catholics to segregate themselves from society. Gay “marriage” is just one issue among many that will be crammed down our throats.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The two are not mutually exclusive. In our diocese, the inner city schools have more non-Catholic than Catholic students. They are diocisan schools attached, usually, to a parish.

I’ve known that diocese schools accept non-Catholics but I hadn’t realized any were predominantly non-Catholic.

So maybe all that is required is to expand these thorugh charitable subsidies.

 

[kimmielittle]

Even family practice might not be safe. If a family practice physician sees any woman post adolecence he/she could be required to prescribe birth control and refer for abortions.

New York came “this close” to requiring that all medical school students receive hands-on training in abortions. This was to be part of the basic curriculum, long before specialties are chosen. So even a dermatologist or a orthopedic surgeon would have had to partcipate in at least one abortion. This makes me sick.

It’s not just about closing “our” Catholic hospitals. It’s about Catholics being forced to abandon healthcare entirely to those who do not value life.

 

[kimmielittle]

The bottom line is that Catholics have to expect the worst from “secular” society today and prepare accordingly for moral battle. The recent Manhattan Declaration was a step in the right direction.

It simply will no longer suffice for Catholics to segregate themselves from society. Gay “marriage” is just one issue among many that will be crammed down our throats.