Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church

[JReducation]

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.

The leaders of the Church have done nothing wrong here for which they have to ask for forgiveness. Yes, the Church has to exist in this world. We are both a temporal and spiritual family. As a temporal organization, we are bound by laws just like everyone else. We do not have to comply with immoral laws. But when we choose not to comply, we must also understand what that implies and be willing to assume the consequences.

As I said above, if the Church chooses to let go of every lay employee, she has to close down the diocese. This begs two questions and we know the answer to one.

1. Can a bishop close down a diocese? The answer is no. He does not have that authority.
2. If the bishop cannot close down the diocese, how can he run it without a staff?

Closing down the diocese is not an option. The bishop has to find another way around this legal issue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

:clapping:

Let’s assume that we close down all of the services to the poor in Washington, DC and we let the city take over. Here is a list of what is left that we also have to close.

• National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
• Catholic University of America
• Marymount University
• Trinity University
• Georgetown University
• Dominican House of Studies
• Washington Theological Seminary
• All Catholic schools
• Providence Catholic Hospital
• Georgetown Catholic Hospital
• Every Catholic parish
• US Conference of Catholic Bishops
• US Conference of Ukranian Catholic Bishops
• Franciscan Commisereate of the Holy Land
• Two cloistered monsteries (Poor Clares and Visitation)
• John Paul II Institute
• EWTN in Washington
• Kennedy Institute
• 40 religious houses of men religious

All of these exist within the District of Columbia and depend on lay staff to remain open. If you dismiss the lay staff, because you don’t want to pay the benefits package, you must close all of the above. If you tell the lay staff that they can work for you, but they will have no benefits, they will resign. Then you still have to close.

The City does not care of these close down. It does not affect them, because few of the above provide services to the city.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

Good point. the first mandamento says: Love God above all things. first God and then others. now and days, it seems the other way around. we must becarefull with what is going among us.

a lady at the Catholic bookstore told me once that JPII said that the laity is the who is going to save the Church. this must tell us something.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The leaders of the Church have done nothing wrong here for which they have to ask for forgiveness. Yes, the Church has to exist in this world. We are both a temporal and spiritual family. As a temporal organization, we are bound by laws just like everyone else. We do not have to comply with immoral laws. But when we choose not to comply, we must also understand what that implies and be willing to assume the consequences.

As I said above, if the Church chooses to let go of every lay employee, she has to close down the diocese. This begs two questions and we know the answer to one.

1. Can a bishop close down a diocese? The answer is no. He does not have that authority.
2. If the bishop cannot close down the diocese, how can he run it without a staff?

Closing down the diocese is not an option. The bishop has to find another way around this legal issue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

closing down a diocese? why? is the Church obligated to hire same sex couples? if she doesnt, she will be closed down? why does the Diocese has to lay off people? if they are living the Faith? since when the CC is obrigated to hire people outside the Faith? have we lost the sense of what is the CC?

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas Brother JR you are always in my prayers ]

The agenda the city council has: goes way beyond LEFT - Left Liberal, in my opinion. To the point that, I’d call it totalitarian - exclusionary…and yes, I’d define it as discriminatory. There is some sinister agenda and I can not help but think it was rehearsed and a cadre was put in place, to achieve their desired ends.

In my opinion, this is way different from San Fransisco, as you pointed out.

This city council has declared war.

I can see no other way to deal with - than to:
1 Challenge them in the Courts …
2 Help promote Christians to fill council seats… this includes 1 Getting campaign funding from Christian based organizations 2 Getting Christan debaters to challenge the city council on every move they make ( never underestimate the power of confusing your enemies ) ]
3 Organize all those lay people which stand to lose those jobs. Let them know what is at stake…a paycheck has much power. It’s not just a Catholic thing.

Take them down - take them out.

Put the Church Militant to work - Onward Christian Soldiers…

As always, just my thoughts

 

[JReducation]

closing down a diocese? why? is the Church obligated to hire same sex couples? if she doesnt, she will be closed down? why does the Diocese has to lay off people? if they are living the Faith? since when the CC is obrigated to hire people outside the Faith? have we lost the sense of what is the CC?

This is the tricky part of the this law. Employment law says that you may not ask certain questions in an interview:

• Are you married?
• Are you gay or straight?
• What is your religion?
• What is your political affiliation?
• How old are you?
• Do you have children?
• Are you divorced and remarried?
• Do you use artificial birth control?

Religious employers (Catholic and others) must prove that the question of religion is essential to the job. For example, the courts hold that being a Catholic, Jew, Muslim and so forth are essential for certain jobs: teaching or running a church. But they are not essential for the accoiuntant, nurse, doctor, secretary, gift shop manager, maintenance person, social worker, and so forth.

What happens is that if you’re interviewing for one of those positions, you cannot ask questions about religion. You would be in violation of federal law. In that case you could be fined or closed down. It makes no difference whether you get government money or not. This law is for any employer.

You can terminate an employee if his or her actions do harm to your organization. If you have an employee who is openly opposed to the teachings of the Church, that employee is doing harm to your organization. You have every right to terminate him. If the employee is not doing anything that does harm to your organization, then you cannot terminate him. An example would be an employee who uses artificial birth control. No one knows about it, except the boss. You can’t terminate. That’s illegal.

It may sound easy to say that the Church should terminate, even if it’s illegal. But it’s not. Many of our organizations and minsitries require licensing from the state. If we begin to terminate people against the law and are found to be guilty, the state has the legal right to pull those licenses. If they pull those licenses, they close us down.

That’s how you close down a diocese. Violate enough laws and the state will close you down, one ministry at a time. The other way is for the bishop to say that he does not want to get into a battle with the state and he’s going to close down the diocese. But then he would have a legal battle with the Vatican.

It’s very interesting. Legally, the bishop owns the entire diocese. But the bishop is accountable to the Vatican for certain things, not everything, but closing down a diocese is one of those things that he must justify to the Vatican. The Vatican is not going to accept that a bishop allows the diocesan ministries to close down because of a conflict with the state as long as there is some place where the battle can be fought, such as a court of law.

Also, look at the list of things that are in the Archdiocese of Washington that depend on lay employees. All of those would be closed if the employer was unable to keep them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hiyas Brother JR you are always in my prayers ]

The agenda the city council has: goes way beyond LEFT - Left Liberal, in my opinion. To the point that, I’d call it totalitarian - exclusionary…and yes, I’d define it as discriminatory. There is some sinister agenda and I can not help but think it was rehearsed and a cadre was put in place, to achieve their desired ends.

In my opinion, this is way different from San Fransisco, as you pointed out.

This city council has declared war.

I can see no other way to deal with - than to:
1 Challenge them in the Courts …
2 Help promote Christians to fill council seats… this includes 1 Getting campaign funding from Christian based organizations 2 Getting Christan debaters to challenge the city council on every move they make ( never underestimate the power of confusing your enemies ) ]
3 Organize all those lay people which stand to lose those jobs. Let them know what is at stake…a paycheck has much power. It’s not just a Catholic thing.

Take them down - take them out.

Put the Church Militant to work - Onward Christian Soldiers…

As always, just my thoughts

I believe that you’re right. I have no idea where this is coming from. But the only place to go now is to coiurt.

Even if you close all the programs to the poor and give them to the city to run, there are those other institutions and services that are needed to keep the Church going, which I put on the list above, such as the National Shrine, etc.

The City Council could make this so much easier by changing the wording in the law. I can’t understand why they can’t see this.

I understand the sentiment of Wisdomseeker, that we should be above the law and allowed to do the right thing. But the fact is that we are not. We can’t operate without the permission of the state. The state can get very nasty. All it has to do is to start taking away licenses and they will have effectively crippled the Catholic Church. Stop and think how many of our churches are in violation of fire codes and are allowed to operate, because the fire marshal looks the other way. How many of our religious and clergy need state licenses to do certain ministries? I know that I need a license to do my ministry. Sisters who do nursing, need licenses, religious brothers who do counseling, need licenses and so forth. We cannot simply say that we don’t have to submit to civil law. We have to do battle when civil law violates our faith and find a way around it. But we can’t pretend it does not exist. The USA probably has more laws than any country in the world.

I have run different ministries. You’d be surprised how many permits, licenses and certificates you have to get to open a school.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is the tricky part of the this law. Employment law says that you may not ask certain questions in an interview:

• Are you married?
• Are you gay or straight?
• What is your religion?
• What is your political affiliation?
• How old are you?
• Do you have children?
• Are you divorced and remarried?
• Do you use artificial birth control?

Religious employers (Catholic and others) must prove that the question of religion is essential to the job. For example, the courts hold that being a Catholic, Jew, Muslim and so forth are essential for certain jobs: teaching or running a church. But they are not essential for the accoiuntant, nurse, doctor, secretary, gift shop manager, maintenance person, social worker, and so forth.

What happens is that if you’re interviewing for one of those positions, you cannot ask questions about religion. You would be in violation of federal law. In that case you could be fined or closed down. It makes no difference whether you get government money or not. This law is for any employer.

You can terminate an employee if his or her actions do harm to your organization. If you have an employee who is openly opposed to the teachings of the Church, that employee is doing harm to your organization. You have every right to terminate him. If the employee is not doing anything that does harm to your organization, then you cannot terminate him. An example would be an employee who uses artificial birth control. No one knows about it, except the boss. You can’t terminate. That’s illegal.

It may sound easy to say that the Church should terminate, even if it’s illegal. But it’s not. Many of our organizations and minsitries require licensing from the state. If we begin to terminate people against the law and are found to be guilty, the state has the legal right to pull those licenses. If they pull those licenses, they close us down.

That’s how you close down a diocese. Violate enough laws and the state will close you down, one ministry at a time. The other way is for the bishop to say that he does not want to get into a battle with the state and he’s going to close down the diocese. But then he would have a legal battle with the Vatican.

It’s very interesting. Legally, the bishop owns the entire diocese. But the bishop is accountable to the Vatican for certain things, not everything, but closing down a diocese is one of those things that he must justify to the Vatican. The Vatican is not going to accept that a bishop allows the diocesan ministries to close down because of a conflict with the state as long as there is some place where the battle can be fought, such as a court of law.

Also, look at the list of things that are in the Archdiocese of Washington that depend on lay employees. All of those would be closed if the employer was unable to keep them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, i appreciate your answers and consideration. but i have a lot of concerns about all this. how many more laws is the CC going to abind by? what if a law is made that no one is to discriminate against marriage of gays and lesbians? that they can get married at any Church? how is the CC going to answer to that? is the CC going to be closed down at this point or she going to abind by these laws to avoid closing down? i hope you can see the danger of giving in some here and some there or just ask to change the wording.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I believe that you’re right. I have no idea where this is coming from. But the only place to go now is to coiurt.

Even if you close all the programs to the poor and give them to the city to run, there are those other institutions and services that are needed to keep the Church going, which I put on the list above, such as the National Shrine, etc.

The City Council could make this so much easier by changing the wording in the law. I can’t understand why they can’t see this.

I understand the sentiment of Wisdomseeker, that we should be above the law and allowed to do the right thing. But the fact is that we are not. We can’t operate without the permission of the state. The state can get very nasty. All it has to do is to start taking away licenses and they will have effectively crippled the Catholic Church. Stop and think how many of our churches are in violation of fire codes and are allowed to operate, because the fire marshal looks the other way. How many of our religious and clergy need state licenses to do certain ministries? I know that I need a license to do my ministry. Sisters who do nursing, need licenses, religious brothers who do counseling, need licenses and so forth. We cannot simply say that we don’t have to submit to civil law. We have to do battle when civil law violates our faith and find a way around it. But we can’t pretend it does not exist. The USA probably has more laws than any country in the world.

I have run different ministries. You’d be surprised how many permits, licenses and certificates you have to get to open a school.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brothere, do you really think that the governament is concerned about the CC? especially when it is presided by seculars and dissent Catholics. is it what we are waiting for? that the state woud make easier for us? we are no longer able to identify our enemies. it is only going to get worse. i hope this woud not be the case but since the world can see the weakness of religion, they are just going to advance more and more.

few years back, this situation woud be unheard of. today, is just a matter of changing the words and it should be ok as long as we are following the laws of the land.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll try to answer both of Wisdomseaker’s post in one

There is a real danger that we are facing. There is no doubt about it. The government is becoming more totalitarian and we do face the risk of having our religious freedoms trampled on. This has to be face. The place to face it is in the courts.

Changing the words of a law so that the wording does not compromise the teaching of the Church is legitimate. This has already been accepted by the Church. We, you and I, do not have to worry about violating God’s law in these cases. The Church has already studied this and determined that certain wording is not a violation of Church teaching.

The presedent was the San Francisco case. The term “Domestic Partners” can mean many things. If the state uses the term to gain benefits for couples who are not married, gay or straight, the Church can turn that term around and use it for anyone who lives in the same home as the employee. This is what they did in San Francisco.

The Church did not recognize the rights of non married couples. What the Church said was that everyone who lives in the home of an employee is a Domestic Partner. Therefore, the employee could designate anyone in his home as the beneficiary of his benefits.

It would have been a violation of the moral law if the Church had given the benefits ONLY to those who live with a non married partner. But this is not what the Church did. As long as she does not do this, she is on safe moral grounds.

Again, I’d like to remind readers that the author of this plan is the man who now runs the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. This is not a dumb man and certainly not one who is unorthodox in his practice of theology. The approval was given by the man who is now the Pope. If we trust these two men to be orthodox, then we can follow their lead in this matter.

As to the Church and civil law, we have no choice but to deal with civil law. Canon law is very clear. The state has the moral right to govern, as long as it does not violate Divine Law. If the state says that we need certain permits, licenses and certificates to remain open, Church Law protects the right of the state to demand these things. If the state says that we must perform same-sex weddings, then we do not have to obey the state. No authority can demand the immoral.

What happens is that you separate. You comply with whatever is moral and you challenge what is immoral. But you cannot set yourself up as above the law, if the law is moral. That would also be a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas Brother JR

It’s probably good that I’m not the Bishop.
You see, I’d not only Challenge in Court as the Catholic Church…I’d encourage EVERY ministry…lay person…etc affected… to do their own law suit against this city council.

I’d encourage the use of every legal conveyance / challenge afforded…i.e, reverse discrimination …etc included.

I’d encourage a vote of no confidence petition against the city council members. The sole responsibility of government is to protect the weak and innocent…not cater to ideological whims of politicians. You can not exclude - to include. That is reverse discrimination.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[JReducation]

Hiyas Brother JR

It’s probably good that I’m not the Bishop.
You see, I’d not only Challenge in Court as the Catholic Church…I’d encourage EVERY ministry…lay person…etc affected… to do their own law suit against this city council.

I’d encourage the use of every legal conveyance / challenge afforded…i.e, reverse discrimination …etc included.

I’d encourage a vote of no confidence petition against the city council members. The sole responsibility of government is to protect the weak and innocent…not cater to ideological whims of politicians. You can not exclude - to include. That is reverse discrimination.

As always, just my thoughts

It can come to that. The problem that I’m having from where I’m sitting is that I don’t have a copy of the law that the City Council has created. All I have a news report that the OP placed here. We always have to be very careful with the positions that we take based on a news report or the comments of a poster on the internet. We really need to know what does the law actually say. Then we can ask the question. Is there a way that we can get aroiund this?

For example, I know for a fact that the law in DC says that students in Catholic schools whose tuition is paid by the School Board cannot be proselitized. But the law does not say that the student cannot be invited to attend religious services. Also, the law does not say that students cannot study religion. It specifically says “proselytize”. Well, that’s not a problem, because the Church also prohibits proselytizing. She believes there is a difference between proselytizing and evangelization.

You see, in this case, knowing the exact wording of the law allows you to know how you can continue to do the work of the Church. But in this thread we’re in the dark, because we do not have the actual wording.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

I think this is it

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

Before someone says anything; I’m Catholic.

I am only looking at this law and it’s flaws.

It seems to me, that excluding domestic partners from their law…by stating “Same Sex” is discrimination.

Now, I don’t like it as a Catholic, but lets be honest…this bill is meant to circumvent the will of the people…nothing more. It protects only one class. This is the truth behind this bill.

Challenge this law on it’s merits.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[JReducation]

Hiyas

I think this is it

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009

Thanks Kimmie. I read the ruling and found the problem. Whoever wrote the text defined domestic partnership as couples. This was not the case in San Francisco and Boston. In those cities, domestic partnership were simply people who lived in the same domicile. This meant that they cold be couples, relatives, house mates, humans and their pets, etc.

This makes it difficult to define your services and benefits. Because the meaning of the term does not allow for other uses.

The other problem with the legislation is that it sort of contradicts itself. It says that religious ministers cannot be forced to witness marriages that are in violation of their faith and that religious organizations do not have to recognize marriages contrary to their faiths. But it grants the domestic partners the right to apply for family benefits. However, the only domestic partners who can apply for such benefits are those who are married.

In San Francisco and Boston, any domestic partner can apply for family benefits. So if I live with my 20-year old son, I can include him in my family benefits as a domestic partner. I cannot include him as dependent, because he’s a legal adult with an income. But as long as we live in the same home, we are domestic partners.

When the law reduces domestic partnership to couples, it creates a situation that is in conflict with Church teaching. What they needed to do was to leave domestic partnership open ended to include anyone in the household.

I’m going to guess here that the writer of the law was thinking of extending benefits to the same-sex spouse, not about other relationships. Because the law excludes those who are living together as a couple and are not married under the law. It’s very narrow.

Actually, laws that allow people to name domestic partners as beneficiaries can be a very good thing, because most insurance companies do not allow you to include any relative who is not a dependant. Even with dependants, if the dependant is over 25, they are excluded. This has caused financial harship for many families who have children who are 25 or over and are in medical school or post graduate school working on PhDs. They had to go out a get separate medical inusurance policies for these family members. Parents who are older cannot be included in your insurance policy. Under domestic partnership, this is possible.

This may have to go to court, unless the City Council rewrites it before Jan 01, 2011.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks Kimmie. I read the ruling and found the problem. Whoever wrote the text defined domestic partnership as couples. This was not the case in San Francisco and Boston. In those cities, domestic partnership were simply people who lived in the same domicile. This meant that they cold be couples, relatives, house mates, humans and their pets, etc.

Exactly, there is an agenda in the way it’s written by Mr.David Catania. I think, maybe some signers didn’t realize the implications.

This makes it difficult to define your services and benefits. Because the meaning of the term does not allow for other uses.

Yeppers

The other problem with the legislation is that it sort of contradicts itself. It says that religious ministers cannot be forced to witness marriages that are in violation of their faith and that religious organizations do not have to recognize marriages contrary to their faiths. But it grants the domestic partners the right to apply for family benefits. However, the only domestic partners who can apply for such benefits are those who are married.

This is part of the reason why I believe it can be challenged

In San Francisco and Boston, any domestic partner can apply for family benefits. So if I live with my 20-year old son, I can include him in my family benefits as a domestic partner. I cannot include him as dependent, because he’s a legal adult with an income. But as long as we live in the same home, we are domestic partners.

And this I think, is why domestic partners, in true equality, should be recognized.

When the law reduces domestic partnership to couples, it creates a situation that is in conflict with Church teaching. What they needed to do was to leave domestic partnership open ended to include anyone in the household.

I’m going to guess here that the writer of the law was thinking of extending benefits to the same-sex spouse, not about other relationships. Because the law excludes those who are living together as a couple and are not married under the law. It’s very narrow.

And it discriminates

Actually, laws that allow people to name domestic partners as beneficiaries can be a very good thing, because most insurance companies do not allow you to include any relative who is not a dependant. Even with dependants, if the dependant is over 25, they are excluded. This has caused financial harship for many families who have children who are 25 or over and are in medical school or post graduate school working on PhDs. They had to go out a get separate medical inusurance policies for these family members. Parents who are older cannot be included in your insurance policy. Under domestic partnership, this is possible.

This may have to go to court, unless the City Council rewrites it before Jan 01, 2011.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

ABSOLUTELY

 

[JReducation]

The Church can argue this law on its merits or lack thereof. It can argue that the law has narrowed the meaning of domestic partners to the detriment of other family members.

I’m not a lawyer. There may be other arguments that can be uesed here. I have no idea.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FK04US]

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.

Second, while you can not ask directly about religious affiliation during the job interviews, this is very easy to check nowadays. Resumes always have an “Other” section where applicants will self-describe its affiliations and I imagine that Catholics applying to a job in the Archdiocese will mention their Church affiliation there somehow … also,there are other and smarter ways to check this type of data…

It does not seem that difficult to me, unless I am missing something.

Blessings,

 

[JReducation]

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.

I guess this can be done. I don’t know of any employment law that says it’s not possible. But it raises the question of justice. What happens to those families who will suddenly find themselves without healthcare coverage? Isn’t this what the entire healthcare struggle is about? Also, will the diocese be able to keep its good emmployees?

Second, while you can not ask directly about religious affiliation during the job interviews, this is very easy to check nowadays. Resumes always have an “Other” section where applicants will self-describe its affiliations and I imagine that Catholics applying to a job in the Archdiocese will mention their Church affiliation there somehow … also,there are other and smarter ways to check this type of data…

It does not seem that difficult to me, unless I am missing something.

Blessings,

Again, it raises questions about justice. Is it fair to terminate someone or discriminate against an employee because he or she is of another faith, when the position for which you’re hiring does not require that you hire a Catholic? Why does the maintenance person, the CFO have to be Catholic? Why does a nurse at a Catholic hospital have to be Catholic?

It is one thing to require employees to comply with Catholic teachings while on the job. It is another to require that they be Catholic to work for the Church in positions that are not pastoral. I worked with many Protestants inside the Catholic Church and Jews and they did an excellent job. Recently the Catholic Church lost one of its best Carmelite theologians who also happened to be a Jewish Rabbi. He was honored by Pope Benedict as one of the best theologians on Carmelite Spirituality at the Gregorian University in Rome. The Pope named Rabbi Klanicki (sp?) a member of the Order of St. Gregory. He is the first and only non Catholic Theologian to be named a member of this most prestigious order of Catholic theologians. He died a year or two later.

We have to be very careful not to waste a lot of talent by embracing a very narrow employment policy. The employment of Catholics only does not guarrantee that they will be faithful to the Church’s teachings. I have often found that non Catholics who work for Catholic institutions are the best friends of the Catholic Church. They work for us because they love what they do and they believe in what they do. They do their jobs well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

Another thing the Bishop might be considering: The District of Columbia is like no other. It is not a State. It is a District / City under the mandate of the Federal Government Congress ]. Some Congress People have already voiced their opposition to this legal instrument.

This may provide other avenues.

As always, just my thoughts