Catholic Church Threatens To Stop Social Service Programs For D.C.'s Neediest If Gay Marriage Passes

Washington Post:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[Angry23]

I don't believe this it sounds like some kind of weird anti-Catholic propaganda. I have never met a Catholic who would believe in such a thing or support it. Most Catholics I know support same sex marriage.

[PhilipB]

It is true.
I spoke with the archdiocese myself.

[DJ Koolkat]

So the Church's leverage here is basically a threat to punish the poor, who have no involvement in this whatsoever.

What the hell?

[BassettHound]

There is a contradiction in terms between "Charities" and "Government Contracts". Naive and Dickensian as this may sound, if the Church is providing "charity" it should do so lovingly and with its own resources....or dig deeper..... Private individuals get tax breaks for charitable giving...the Church is fully tax exempt. There's a lot of money tied up in Church real estate and artifacts, too....
Perhaps Washington DC (and other cities facing similar dilemmas) needs to change the basis and structure of its social services, and not provide "contracts" and "licenses" to religious organizations, but create secular services that are eligible for funding.
The Church, as I see it, still has the freedom to teach what it sees fit...but, as a mamber of a community, must abide by community laws.
Of course, as we all know either way, the side that will prevail is the one who is in least financial need....
But it is mind-boggling in this case that the pawns in what is essentially a political wrangle are the neediest of all.

[Artemis34]

"Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts"

I'm sure that amount of money won't go wanting for a contractor.

[Artemis34]

The idea that they also contribute from "their own coffers" is ludicrous.

As long as they enjoy tax exempt status, part of anything they spend is from public funding as the tax exemption is essentially a subsidy provided by the PUBLIC.

[Artemis34]

We're talking about the use of PUBLIC funds people:

"Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would NOT be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings.

But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. "

So what! If they receive public funds, they have to obey public laws.

[Artemis34]

How very un-Christian as usual.

Tax the he// out of them!

[mostly amused]

In 1917, Mexico confiscated all of their property. We should do the same.

[youzaho]

"Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services if a same sex marriage bill passes. Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services."

That's what's really going on here.

[From the Raft]

These contracts can easily be farmed out to India which serves some of the largest corporations in the world. The Catholic Church is acting like it has a monopoly on these services. Heck, even Blackwater would do it!

[Artemis34]

Oh yeah, big victims!

I don't think they should get any public funds or contracts regardless.

If they choose to be hateful discriminatory employers, then they don't deserve any public contracts.

They impose intolerance on themselves.

[eddie too]

the Church will not stop providing aid to the poor and innocent just because the DC city council will not contract with the Church unless the Church changes its teachings.

that is a complete falsehood.

i am sure the DC government will find many people without faith or principles to take its money .

[FdeBear]

Didn't Jesus say, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and to God, what is God's". He was telling his followers to pay their taxes - to contribute to the public good. Jesus did not discriminate against the faithless and the unprincipaled - so why should the so-called Catholic church? God's mercy is free TO ALL. This is a principle many "believers" find hard to understand - God does not play favorites and you cannot "barter" your way into heaven - the sun shines and the rain falls on us all. It seems to me the so-called Catholic church is the one seeking secular power and not its mission to serve God.

[gotborked]

The H P's misleading blurb has caused a lot of confusion about the facts of the situation.

Georgetown Professor Deenen clarifies the issue in a followup in the WaPo:

"I think the basic premise of the Post's story requires clarification. The premise of today's story was that the Catholic Church was threatening to cease to provide charitable services if the law legalizing gay marriage is passed. In point of fact, it is the DC government that would cease to license or contract with the Church unless the Church conformed to a definition of marriage that violates its faith tradition. Without a set of broader legal exemptions allowing for the Church to remain faithful to its definition of marriage, it will cease to be permitted by the City to provide the contracted and licensed services that it has for well over a century. The Church's fundamental desire in this controversy is to continue its desire and freedom to serve."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/12/DI2009111208573.html

[FdeBear]

But they still have a choice whether to sign the contract and it doesn't curtail its freedom to serve. They can keep serving those they choose to without a government contract and be free to discriminate against gays. What is stopping them from going their own way if they find service to everyone - including gays - so menacing?

[MacQ]

THey do not find service to gays menacing, and provide them routinely.
They do not want to be contractually forced to recognize marriages.
Really different.

[Artemis34]

I'm sure they would just require them to treat employees with equality as a public contractor.

If they can't do that, they don't deserve the contract.

They don't deserve legal exemption on public contracts.

Has nothing to do their their religious definition of marriage, no one is trying to change that. That is just the way the dress up "We'd like to discriminate against people working for us on public contracts [and use public funds to exercise our hate]."

Disgusting.

[justins79]

That's a very Christian thing to do. Do what we say or we'll stop doing the good things that we profess to be the word of our deity. Eye for an eye.

[Artemis34]

They aren't even funding the good works, this is about public contracts with public money.

[gotborked]

The Church is in the business of helping people, not harming them.
According to the faith, it is understood that practicing a homosexual lifestyle is harmful to the human person. The church cannot act in such a way that would be promoting something harmful. The church understands that to do so would not only be harmful for those directly effected, but the church would also be guilty of what it calls scandal--openly committing an act that is likely to induce others, such as other Catholics, to do something morally wrong. Further, it is a fundamental philosophical understanding of the church and of western thought that the ends do not justify the means. The church cannot intentionally commit a moral wrong for good ends.

Refusing to allow for a conscience exception for churches so that they can continue their much needed charities is just stup.id. Such assaults on religious freedom and the good works that faith-based communities perform are one of the main reasons Americans oppose the imposition of new same sex marriage laws.

[talkstocoyotes]

"The Church is in the business of helping people, not harming them."

Then they'd do well to butt out of American politics.

[gotborked]

In this case, the church isn't stepping into politics. The state is trying to force the church to operate as if it were a government entity. The state, in this case, is violating the idea of separation of church and state. This is about charity services. DC has contracted with the church for many years to provide services that the state can't handle on its own. The Church is saying that it will have to cancel these contracts if the state's law forces it to violate its conscience. It will still provide charity as it can, but not through these contracts.

[KDog76A]

THe government would do well to butt out of church teaching too

[mercury613]

The church also believes that abortion is "is harmful to the human person", yet I don't hear any cries of "violation of conscience" over the fact that they must also extend benefits to (and can't discriminate against in hiring) women who have had abortions, or people who are having premarital sex, or people who have been divorced.

The church also doesn't seem to have any problems ministering in Uganda, where homosexuals are imprisoned, tortured and murdered -- legally. So much for their conscience.

More of the same bald-faced hypocrisy.

[KDog76A]

you are really reaching

"The church also doesn't seem to have any problems ministering in Uganda, where homosexuals are imprisoned, tortured and murdered -- legally. So much for their conscience."

They are helping the people not the government. But no good deed goes unpunished, huh?

[MacQ]

You are correct: they are not protesting "women who have had abortions, or people who are having premarital sex, or people who have been divorced." They hire and care for all of the above.
Anyway, this article is misleading.
Perhaps you should read the clarification (cited in a post above and in the WaPo) which says in part: "Without a set of broader legal exemptions allowing for the Church to remain faithful to its definition of marriage, it will cease to be permitted by the City to provide the contracted and licensed services that it has for well over a century. The Church's fundamental desire in this controversy is to continue its desire and freedom to serve."

As in Uganda, they want to remain in areas of need and minister to those in need.

[Artemis34]

"According to the faith" - NOT.

According to the the stuff they just make up.

Their position on abortion and homosexuality are not based on the bible and their aggressive funding of hate campaigns against gay civil rights hurts people.

Their insane positions on abortion makes the life of an adult woman worthless but a clump of cells is paramount, which is harmful.

Girl, 9, Has Abortion Despite Church's Objections
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/brazil-girl-9-has-abortio_n_172273.html

Keep religion out of secular government!

[One more Thing]

Is the Church going to stop administering to young boys also?

[KDog76A]

are you?

[Artemis34]

Doesn't it say in the bible to get the timber out of your own eye before you try to remove the splinter from the eye of another?

I think the Catholic Church better get the effing TIMBER out of their eye!

[One more Thing]

To support their programs for feeding the hungry they could earn money by tearing down their cathedrals and selling them brick by brick ... oh wait, their decision had nothing to do with lack of money!

[KDog76A]

why not tear down the White House and Capital too?

[Artemis34]

Too late, G W B already emptied the treasury.

[MacQ]

They do more for the poor around the world than any institution in history.
What have you done lately? (I mean you personally. And screeching for the government to take care of them doesn't count).
Go.

[Artemis34]

Or is that they do more TO the poor...?

I know in Brazil, for example, they forbid birth control and abortion, only to have the slums fill, have the children turn to prostitution (maybe this is what they want?) and then when the kids become too annoying to businesses and are shot like rats, they just turn a blind eye to the massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candel%C3%A1ria_massacre
http://www.brazzil.com/2005-mainmenu-79/206-july-2009/10221-16-years-after-candelaria-massacre-impunity-and-death-squads-still-roam-brazil-streets.html

I'm mean they aren't fetuses anymore, so who cares, right?

[rbenjamin]

What Would Jesus Stop Doing

[KDog76A]

now thats actually funny