Tom Reese on DC
Tom Reese’s column on DC and Catholics should be read in full; don’t think it got a fair plug below.
Catholic Charities, gays and DC ‘ s poor
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
If you believed what you read on blogs and in newspapers, you would conclude that the archdiocese of Washington is threatening to withdraw money for food and shelter from the poor in the District of Columbia in order to get its way on gay marriage.
What are the facts?
For decades, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington has received money from the District of Columbia to operate programs helping the poor. This is common throughout the country where the Catholic Church is the second largest provider of services to the poor, second only to the government. Catholic Charities competes with private and nonprofit agencies for these contracts with the government deciding which organization will provide the best services for the money. This is a good deal for state and local governments because these Catholic Charities programs are efficiently and effectively run with both professionals and volunteers.
Meanwhile, the City Council for the District of Columbia has decided to enact legislation forbidding discrimination against those in gay marriages. This legislation would not force churches to perform gay marriages or to change their moral doctrines, but it would require any organization with a contract with the District to provide medical benefits to a gay partner just like it provides them to the heterosexual partner in a marriage. It would also require adoption agencies to sponsor children to gay couples if the agency is under contract with the city.
The archdiocese says that it cannot do this because of its moral opposition to gay marriage. This is not new. The Archdiocese to San Francisco had the same fight with its city council, and the adoption programs of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts were shut down because the state legislature insisted that they sponsor adoptions to gay couples while the bishops insisted they would not.
It should be clear from this review of the facts that the church is not threatening to withdraw its money from the poor. It is simply pointing out that it cannot observe these new requirements and therefore the city will cancel its contracts. It is in fact the city council that is closing down these programs, not the archdiocese.
Not surprisingly, the members of the city council are much better at spinning this story with the media than is the archdiocese. The Catholic Church’s PR skills are dismal. Perhaps it was caught by surprise by the vehemence of the attack. The dispute is being portrayed as the Catholic Church versus gay rights even though everyone knows that Black ministers in Washington are also opposed to this legislation.
Let ’s be clear. The city has a right to set whatever conditions it wants on agencies that receive money from it. But the church also has a right to say, “Sorry, we can ‘ t accept money under those rules.”
Some people on the city council think that is fine. Good riddance. They think they can find other people to run these programs as well as Catholic Charities. I doubt it, but they have the power and the money so they can try. If they fail, it is their responsibility.
So far I have been defending the archdiocese, but in fact I regret that the U.S. Catholic bishops have an obsession with opposing the legalization of gay marriage. This is an issue that at most deserves one letter of opposition from the bishop and then they should let it go. Spending millions of church dollars to oppose gay marriage in California, Massachusetts and Maine was a waste of resources and a case of misplaced priorities.
I have never bought the argument that gay marriage is a threat to families. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to cause millions of people in heterosexual marriages to suddenly decide to leave their spouses for a same-sex partner. It could be argued that gay marriage might help heterosexual marriages. For example, in an apartment building filled with unmarried couples in New York City , the gays who get married may inspire the heterosexuals to do the same thing.
With regards to medical benefits, the real answer is that whether a person gets health care should not depend on their marital status or where they are employed. We should have universal health care for everyone that is not dependent on employers. But in the meantime, can the Catholic Church give health care benefits to gay partners of its employees? The archdiocese says it cannot because gay marriage is against its teachings.
However, remarrying after a divorce is also against Catholic teaching, yet the church gives health care benefits to divorced and remarried couples. No one believes that the church has changed its teaching on divorce. No one will believe that the church has changed its teaching on gay sex if it provides medical benefits to gay couples.
What is needed right now is a toning down of the attacks against the church by those who support the city council’s position. Both sides need to look for compromise. An exemption from the law for religious organizations would affect very few people and would allow the church to continue working with the city on behalf of the poor. The city council could always revisit the issue in the future, but the middle of a deep recession is not a good time to fire the best provider of social services in the city.
Thomas J. Reese, S.J., is a Senior Fellow, Woodstock Theological Center , Georgetown University .
on November 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I did not see any problems with Eduardo’s posting.
Go here for a statement on the issues directly from the Archdiocese of Washington.
The two issues mentioned are adoption involving same-sex couples and benefits to spouses in a gay marriage.
It seems to me that there is a true conflict on adoption. An adoption agency can — in good conscience — place children only in homes that they consider to be suitable. However, according to information from a very reliable poster on Vox Nova, the Archdiocese of Washington handled only six adoptions last year. If that is the norm, it seems to me the District has no incentive to compromise on the issue of nondiscrimination in adoptions. Losing the services of an adoption provider that handles only six cases a year will not have any significant impact on the District. Why should they compromise?
The matter of employee benefits seems bogus to me, and Fr. Reese makes a very good case against the Archdiocese. I would also say that just as it is a huge leap from saying abortion is an intrinsic evil to saying one must support the Stupak Amendment, it is a huge leap to say that because of the Church’s teachings on gay marriage, it is a violation of conscience to provide insurance benefits to same-sex couples. The Archdiocese could make it crystal clear that complying with a civil law on benefits to same-sex couples does not in any way means it endorses, recognizes, or approves of same-sex marriage.
Although I think the USCCB’s stand on health insurance coverage for everyone, including illegal immigrants, is correct and commendable, they have in no way made it a nonnegotiable demand as they have their stand on abortion. Nevertheless, I think it is hypocritical of the Church on the one hand to support government benefits for those who are in the country illegally, but on the other claim they are being forced to abandon their principles to comply with a law that grants insurance coverage to a same-sex partner. Just as allowing illegal immigrants to insure themselves (including, if necessary, with government subsidies) need not be seen as a sign of endorsing illegal immigration into the United States, providing health insurance to a same-sex partner need not be seen as recognizing or endorsing same-sex marriage. Affordable health insurance coverage for everyone, including those here illegally and those in relationships the Church does not recognize, is a the humanitarian and charitable thing to do. I don’t think the District should compromise on benefits for same-sex spouses.
I don’t think Eduardo was unfair to Fr. Reese, who seems to be saying the Archdiocese has a weak case, but the District of Columbia ought to accommodate them anyway.
on November 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I thought what he wrote was very interesting and I had a post at my own blog about it yesterday. It’s not the first time he’s made his feelings clear about same-gender marriage, he has a past post – Right or Rite, Civil Discussion in Order in which he wrote, in part …
Homosexual relationships exist in American society in not insignificant numbers. Even if you consider such relationships immoral, it can be argued that the state has an interest in encouraging these relationships to be stable and long term rather than multiple and short term ….. I think it is foolish for churches to expend their political capital opposing the legalization of gay marriage. There are many other issues of greater importance: abortion, hunger, global warming, peace, health care, etc. ….
on November 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Of course the Church can set its own priorities. But as a paid service provider with government funds, it clearly has to adhere to various tenets of non-discrimination — so long as these do not apply to its operation as a church, they have been upheld time and again. Indeed, I happen to think that the church is making such an overt threat because it knows it is unlikely to win any kind of judicial relief. The same fight was fought in California regarding coverage of contraception, where CC was not exempted as a church, and which was upheld.
One might ask how it is that CC would see fit to hire gay men and women, but treat them unequally. If those gay men and women get married, and it is still morally appropriate for CC to employ them, how is it less morally appropriate for it to fund their benefits? As a matter of logic this is simply grandstanding. Maybe the church will cease operating CC in the District. But it is the opposite of charity to insist that one’s services are available only if the proper moral conditions have been met.
on November 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
One might ask how it is that CC would see fit to hire gay men and women, but treat them unequally. If those gay men and women get married, and it is still morally appropriate for CC to employ them, how is it less morally appropriate for it to fund their benefits?
Excellent point. Why should the District allow Catholic Charities to have two classes of employees — one eligible for benefits and another not?
on November 14th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
As they say in England:
If you are going to take the Queen’s shilling, then you must do the Queen’s bidding.
Of course, the RCC doesn’t like it that way: she wants to always be Queen of the Hill and expects everyone else to do Her bidding.
Ain’t necessarily so, you know.
on November 14th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Right, ain’t necessarily so… in this case, the DC council passes its legislaltion. The Archdiocese withdraws from DC city contracts. DC goes and gives the contracts to someone else. Everyone’s consciences are satisfied. What’s the problem?
on November 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
The truth is , there is an inherent nature in Marriage that can not be changed even if the Constitution provided for establishing a separate Personhood based upon sexual preferences, which, as we all know, it doesn’t. Marriage equality already exists since all Persons must meet the same standards to be Married.
on November 14th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Reese’s piece is a helpful dollop of information. Thanks for bringing it into brighter light.
As for adoption, CC’s all over the US are doing far less work placing children. Social workers in dioceses tell me their adoption work is very light: more babies are being reared by birth moms, and many are referring troubled pregnancies to private agencies.
That said, I am dismayed the Church is getting caught up in a Hermeneutic of Subtraction on its advocacy against same sex unions/marriage. Instead of wasting resources and credibility, they could instead do a better job of promoting the causes of charity among the laity. As for adoption, there are well over 100,000 children legally ready for adoption today. Where are the Catholic couples and families when they are needed? Why aren’t large families adopting? Why aren’t more childless couples taking in special needs children? Why isn’t adoption promoted as a positive pro-life effort to be shouldered by all believers.
Individual families may well have their own singular reasons why adoption isn’t a good option. Certainly it’s not for everybody. But that the Church’s witness on this isn’t stronger weakens our pro-life credibility across the board.
Sending poor babies to nasty SSA couples may well elicit gasps of horror from the Catholic Right. But that’s no comfort to tens of thousands of girls and boys who live in foster homes, care facilities, and worse because nobody is stepping to the plate to adopt them.
on November 14th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Nancy, your response is a tired old argument that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
In the 1950s, it was common for gay men to marry a woman because that’s what society expected. IS that what you want to return to? Do you think the wife of Jim McGreavey, for example, would agree with your statement that gay people are already free to marry people of the opposite sex? Do you think she would say that is a good thing?
Your argument is baseless and demeaning. It’s like the Republican argument against health care reform, which holds that we already have a wonderful health care system, while ignoring the fact that many people cannot afford it. At more than one town hall meeting, Republican legislators said people should just buy health insurance. With what money are they supposed to do that? Or it’s like the civil-rights era statement that black people were free to vote — if they could get through the KKK line at the polling place.
To argue that if gay people want to be married they should marry a person of the opposite sex not only shows a total disregard for human sexuality, but also a cavalier indifference to the fate of the spouse and children in such a marriage and, in fact, a total misunderstanding of why people marry. Hint: it’s not for tax breaks or social acceptance.
You are no doubt quite satisfied with the neatness of your argument, but it ignores the real human situation and is merely a bumper-sticker slogan.
on November 14th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Meanwhile, did you know that almost 50 dioceses gave money to the campaign against hay marriage in Maine?
http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/public/entity_financial_transactions.asp?TYPE=BQC&ID=4528
on November 14th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
oops. Sorry for an embarrassing typo.
on November 14th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I am a bit surprised that liberal Catholics (Okay not Nancy D) who hold the responsibilites of conscience to be sacrosanct (and I agree) can’t fathom the possibility that for the Archdiocese of Washington (whose archbishop, Donald Wuerl has been clear on not going after members of Congress on prudential political judgements and Communion issues because of conscience) has an issue of conscience here. Let’s have some serious thinking here, folks!
on November 14th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Here is what the D.C. human rights says currently:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice in Employment, Housing, Education and Pubic Accommodations to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, genetic information, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or business of any individual:
* To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual; or otherwise to discriminate against any individual, with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including promotion
* To limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee
I am not saying that there is no issue of conscience involved, I just don’t see how it could be worse for the Archdiocese to employ married gay people and pay benefits than employing them altogether. But they don’t seem to be objecting to being forced to adhere to the underlying nondiscrimination law that is already in place, which would prohibit discrimination against gay men and women and which, I am pretty certain, CC is already forced to abide by.
It’s the focus on benefits — not that those involved aren’t sufficiently orthodox to work for CC, but that CC shouldn’t have to pay for their benefits — that makes it seem like the Archdiocese isn’t thinking straight. Benefits are just a form of compensation.
on November 14th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
What you’re saying Barbara, if I have you right, is that the Archdiocese does not discriminate in hiring. Am I right? (and in many places around the country dioceses and archdioceses do not discriminate in hiring–just what the Mormons have agreed to as Eduardo’s post below discusses). What is at issue is benefits to “married” same-sex couples, which the DC archdiocese says it won’t recognize and as far as I can tell, the Mormons don’t recognize either (correct me if I’m wrong). The conscience issue, it seems to me, rests on the implicit recongition of same-sex marriage that would be granted by offering benefits, and to which both Catholic and Mormon religious officials object.
on November 14th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Margaret, let me provide an alternative situation so you can see how problematic this kind of objection is: Catholic hospitals in Washington D.C. will be required to treat spouses of gay men and women the same as other spouses — in areas like visitation, next of kin designation, decision making, and so on. They will also have to treat their employees in a non-discriminatory manner. Their objection to the D.C. Council’s actions as Catholics will be totally irrelevant to the way they go about providing their services or treating their employees.
The difficulty here isn’t with the objection, it’s with the fact that CC is not itself a church and provides many — indeed, I would venture, most — of its services with public funds. (Most CC clients are not Catholic, especially the current crop of immigrants that it helps through refugee resettlement services.) It is not itself a church, just as the Catholic hospitals are not. Do you think the Archdiocese should tell Georgetown and Provident to stop operating as employers and service providers in the District?
The case this is closest to is the Amish Social Security payment case, in which the Supreme Court told the Amish that if they participate in secular activities, they don’t get a free pass on neutrally applied laws that incidentally touch on their religious beliefs or practices. The Amish were free not to engage in commerce, and certainly, not to have employees. Of course, the Amish never argued that until Social Security was repealed they would just stay at home and departicipate from commerce! That’s not much of a threat, but it would be highly problematic for Congress to say, “okay, everybody but the Amish have to pay SS for their employees.”
on November 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Eric, the precedent for Marriage was established In The Beginning…
The reality is that the inherent ordered nature of Marriage has existed since the beginning of time.
For this reason, “Fathers and Daughters are not demeaned, their equality is not rejected, their Love not denied, when they are barred from marrying one another.”-Hadley Arkes (HT Catholic Culture)
Our Founding Fathers were aware of the self-evident truth regarding the inherent ordered nature of Marriage, which is why they did not establish a separate Personhood based on sexual preferences to begin with.
on November 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Let’s have some serious thinking here, folks!
Margaret,
I find that when I think seriously about this issue — which apparently I didn’t before — I come to the same conclusion. I believe the justice of the peace who refused to marry the interracial couple in Louisiana when he says it was a matter of conscience. That doesn’t mean I believe he was right to do what he did.
How about some serious thinking about the council members who are drafting this civil-rights legislation. Perhaps they have consciences, too.
It seems to me that Fr. Reese is saying that the arguments made by the Archdiocese are unconvincing. The document I linked to above says
I do not see how this legislation in any way compels the Archdiocese to “abandon its beliefs about the nature of marriage.”
Having said that, I do hope some kind of compromise can be found such as conferring benefits based on households rather than marriages. I see no problem with that at all. But I do not think the Archdiocese should be granted an exemption and allowed to discriminate against same-sex married couples.
on November 15th, 2009 at 12:20 am
The conscience issue, it seems to me, rests on the implicit recongition of same-sex marriage that would be granted by offering benefits, and to which both Catholic and Mormon religious officials object.
Margaret,
Fr. Reese demolishes that in the piece you posted!
It just boggles my mind that the church, as an act of conscience, would want to refuse medical coverage to someone. I thought the church believed medical care was a right.
on November 15th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Read the complete post here.
on November 15th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Our Founding Fathers were aware of the self-evident truth regarding the inherent ordered nature of Marriage, which is why they did not establish a separate Personhood based on sexual preferences to begin with.
Nancy,
I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to mean, but I will just note that marriage is not mentioned in the original text of the constitution, and although I believe there were women in the United States in 1789, they are not mentioned either. Nor are there any mentions of marriage and women in any of the amendments.
on November 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I think that whether the Archbishop of Washington has been a good guy on conscience matters is irrelvant to the discussion of the continuing tension I noted in the post by Eduardo below between service to the community and fidelity to what the Church sees it must affirm on marriage (and beyond that, the perception of that in the Catholic community and the body politic as a whole.)
This week will bring the USCCB meeting in Baltimote and perhaps the pastoral on marriage, which will further, I fear, increase that tension and raise more credibility issues about what the Church wishes to proclaim.
on November 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Non-profits are generally pretty good at coping with compliance issues. One way to deal with the benefits dilemma is to only provide coverage for the employee- no spousal coverage at all; then the discrimination issue is off the table. You could then bump up everyone’s wages so they could buy expanded coverage, if needed. At my own agency (in NYC) we did provide domestic partner coverage (we had no problem with that), but, to contain costs, I only actually subsidized the premiums for the employees and their dependents. A spouse or gay partner who was not a dependent, could get coverage through us, but they had to pay the full cost of the premiums. (I figured, in the case of the non-dependent spouse, the benefits issue was between them and their own employer.) None of this is perfect, but if you really want to be sure the charity’s work continues, I think there are creative ways to make it happen.
on November 15th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Irene Baldwin: Thanks for the good example. Compromise measures are always there, if and when people want them. As the comment on this post show, some don’t think compromise is a tolerable option. Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose.
on November 15th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
There are no losers in the group of those who form their conscience according to and in communion with The Word of God, Who is Love.
on November 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
As the comment on this post show, some don’t think compromise is a tolerable option. Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose.
Margaret,
This is a second comment from you that seems more like a personal rebuke to the participants in the discussion than “serious thinking” about the issue. What kind of compromise would you like to see?
It seems to me that compromise requires both sides to make some concessions. The proposed law already does make concessions in not requiring the Archdiocese to be directly involved in same-sex weddings. I don’t think anyone here would object to that. What I don’t want to see is the Archdiocese of Washington winning and the District of Columbia losing. An exemption allowing the Archdiocese to discriminate is not acceptable. A compromise allowing the Archdiocese to comply with anti-discrimination legislation while making it clear they do not endorse same-sex marriage would be fine with me. Avoiding the whole issue of recognizing same-sex marriage by allowing employers to grant insurance benefits based on well-defined households rather than marriage (as is discussed in the other thread) would also be fine with me.
Here’s a proposal. I am not a legislator, so it may be entirely wacky, but I like it. For any employer who does not comply with the law in a specific case and refuses benefits to a same-sex spouse, impose a fine or a tax equal to the cost of what they employer pays to cover an opposite-sex spouse in the same circumstances. That tax or fine goes to the state, which in turn offers a voucher to the same-sex spouse to use toward insurance coverage. That way the Archdiocese can violate what it believes to be an unjust law, and the person discriminated against can still get insurance coverage.
on November 15th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Sorry to vex you Mr. Nickol. My last observation about compromise was in response to Irene Baldwin and the compromise she seems to have arrived at for her agency. Not sure that would meet your standard of compromise. Would it meet Nancy Danielson’s?
From afar, it appears that neither the Arch of Washington or the DC city council are willing to compromise (your point that the Arch will not be required to participate in same-sex weddings is moot since the DC city council could not compel a religious body to act against its own teachings–I believe that would be unconstitutional)… Perhaps behind the scenes a compromise is being crafted; I hope so. The SF compromise offering insurance to adults long-living in the same house seems a reasonable one. You say that would that pass your test. I hope they adopt it, or find one amenable to both.
But if they fail, I don’t see why the consciences of both the council and Archdiocese aren’t preserved in the Arch declining to accept contracts that include same-sex couple coverage and in the council offering the contract to another agency that will. Catholic agencies go out of business for many reasons. That may be regretable, but the work is taken up by others. Why not? And without wanting to sound too casual: So what?
on November 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Since it is true that there is an inherent ordered nature in Marriage that cannot be changed, then barring same-sex couples from Marriage is not discrimination to begin with. The question then becomes whether it is for the common good to provide coverage for an employee’s spouse and their children.
on November 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
There is a huge irony here in the stance by the Archdiocese: they insist that they should have the right under freedom of conscience to deny benefits to employees in same sex-marriages. But the church also claims to support freedom of conscience for Catholics who dissent in good conscience from church teaching. On this basis, a gay couple who, after careful prayer, spiritual direction study and any thing else that can help, conclude that in good conscience the appropriate thing for them to do is to mark their mutual love in a formal contract of marriage, will in fact be acting fully within the demands of the church: for it is standard that where conscience disagrees with official teaching, conscience must take precedence.
If the church as employer cannot accept a conscience clause for its own people, it has no right to expect one from the city.
on November 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Since it is true that there is an inherent ordered nature in Marriage that cannot be changed, then barring same-sex couples from Marriage is not discrimination to begin with.
Nancy,
According to the Church, a Catholic who obtains a civil divorce but not an annulment and remarries in a civil ceremony is still married to his or her original spouse and is living in adultery. The Archdiocese apparently does not feel obliged to seek an exemption or compromise in order to keep from “recognizing” invalid second marriages. How is it consistent for the Archdiocese to give spousal benefits to opposite-sex couples whose marriages they don’t recognize, but refuse them to same-sex couples whose marriages they don’t recognize?
The government is not requiring the Church to accept the civil marriage of a same-sex couple as a sacramental marriage. It is requiring them to treat it the same way they would any other civil marriage. Much as anyone may oppose same-sex marriage, it is the state that makes the rules about what constitutes a civil marriage.
By drawing the line at same-sex civil marriages, isn’t the Church, in a way, endorsing the current state of civil marriage in the United States? When you draw a line in the sand at same-sex marriage, what you’ve got on your side of the line is far from the Catholic ideal of marriage. Why is the Catholic Church implicitly defending the state of civil marriage in the country today by in effect saying, “We can accept the status quo, but we can’t accept same-sex marriage?” One would think the Church would want to put about as much distance between itself and the current state of civil marriage as it wants to put between itself and same-sex marriage.
on November 15th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Irene Baldwin had the same thought I did, which is that the CC stops contributing to dependent coverage for everyone and bumps up salaries — the employees are somewhat disadvantaged taxwise, but everybody gets coverage. This isn’t a compromise. CC can do this unilaterally without any input from D.C. if it wants to.
on November 15th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Is the ordinance actually mandating that contractors provide spouse/partner health coverage? That would be very unusual and, if that’s the case, I would expect there to be a huge uproar from a lot of sectors, not just religious charitable organizations. If the ordinance is just an anti-discrimination law, which is what it sounds like, it’s easy to comply without sacrificing principles: pretty much any health insurance scenario would work except one that covered spouses: you could provide no health insurance, health insurance to employees only, or even health insurance to employees and their children. And, the agency could provide employees with cash payments to offset any possible reduction in benefits if they drop spousal coverage.
I agree with Margaret Steinfels: if at the end of day the Archdiocese dropped out as a service provider, there would be plenty of other organizations to step in, and the Archdiocese could then redirect its resources to other charitable needs. This seems like a battle that just doesn’t have to happen.
on November 15th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
David:
You make the point succinctly.
In fact, more than merely tolerating the idea of civil divorce, the Church actively requires some Catholics to obtain one. That’s in the case of an annulment proceeding.
So how can we as the Church on one hand say that a civil divorce for heterosexuals is a merely legal technicality required for an annulment, but in the case of marriage for homosexual people a civil marriage is an affront to the sacrament? This is entirely contradictory, and people see that.
This is exactly the sort of dishonest doublespeak we find so exasperating.
on November 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Irene Baldwin: “This seems like a battle that just doesn’t have to happen.”
Agreed.
on November 16th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Just a couple of points:
-I.m glad the idea of conscience came up here, because as I norted in an earleier thread, the view (as the Santa Clara study on Ethics portrayed) of this matter and others seems to fall between personalist and ecclesialist lines.
-I further note noone answered the issue raised by Fr. Martin, which has over 100 comments at his America blog.
-My own view is that the Churcj , as with the question of women, is between a rock and a hard place in dealing with issues “defending” marriage and addressing gays.
The US hierarchy appears to be staunchly comitted to merely restating traditional views and using what juice it has to support that – not exactly a way to compromise.
Compromise indeed is valuable and it does take two sides to give, but what is the Church willing to give> And, again, what is the pastoral imact of where it stands? Is it strengthening marriage in any real way? What does it say to gays or those who see it as merely perpetuating policies that are intolerant?
on November 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“This is an issue that at most deserves one letter of opposition from the bishop and then they should let it go. ”
I don’t find this argument to be very persuasive. The importance of an issue doesn’t correlate with the number of church documents. Humanae Vitae is a single brief document, but I’d think we’d all agree that the issue of artificial contraception in marriage is important.
Either the issue of gay marriage is important or it isn’t. If it isn’t important, then we’d expect that there would be no energy around it, emotions would not be high, and there would be no political advocacy groups employing professional advocates and raising millions of dollars to promote it. That we do see all these things suggests that in fact it’s an important issue.
on November 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“I agree with Margaret Steinfels: if at the end of day the Archdiocese dropped out as a service provider, there would be plenty of other organizations to step in, and the Archdiocese could then redirect its resources to other charitable needs. This seems like a battle that just doesn’t have to happen.”
David Gibson suggested in the earlier thread on this topic that cancelling the contracts doesn’t mean that Catholic Charities would cease to provide these services – perhaps they’d be doing it on a non-contractual basis.
But if it is Catholic Charities’ mission – as an arm of the Catholic Church – to provide these services, why shouldn’t it be permitted to carry out its mission?
on November 16th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“One way to deal with the benefits dilemma is to only provide coverage for the employee- no spousal coverage at all; then the discrimination issue is off the table. ”
The Catholic Church sees marriage betwen a man and a woman as a good – in fact, as an indispensable cornerstone of human society. Why shouldn’t the church be able to promote it through its benefits policies? It doesn’t seem any different than the government promoting home ownership by offering tax deductions on mortgage interest.
on November 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
JP: My impression is that these contractual arrangements between CC and government meet the preponderance of service costs, i.e., CC probably couldn’t carry on at its current level without the contracts. This is probably not as true for hospitals which have more fed dollars than local dollars. Maybe Irene Baldwin could clarify.
on November 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“What is at issue is benefits to “married” same-sex couples, ”
We can be more precise than this … what is at issue is extending benefits to the same-sex “spouses” of CC employees. The employees themselves are not being discriminated against – all employees are equally eligible for the benefits. (Believe I have that right).
on November 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“JP: My impression is that these contractual arrangements between CC and government meet the preponderance of service costs, i.e., CC probably couldn’t carry on at its current level without the contracts. ”
I’m sure that’s true – in fact, the link that David N. provided in the first comment to this post says as much. In general, government funding accounts for the great majority of CC funding.
on November 16th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Reflecting on the comments that see the Arch of DC being wrong and/or acting wrongly on the same-sex marriage insurance coverage, I had today the perverse and paradoxical thought that the view underlying the comments too is a very old-fashioned Catholic attitude: Error Has No Rights!
on November 16th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
The Guidestar site (www.guidestar.org) publishes all non-profits’ annual IRS 990 filings (tax returns). Information is available to the general public, but you have to register with the site to access the tax filings. A quick look at the info for what seemed to be the main corporation for Catholic Charities DC showed that in one recent tax year most of its revenue was from government contracts (though whether it was city or federal money I couldn’t tell). It looks like it would be catastrophic for the agency to lose its govt funding.
on November 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The Catholic Church sees marriage betwen a man and a woman as a good – in fact, as an indispensable cornerstone of human society. Why shouldn’t the church be able to promote it through its benefits policies?
Jim,
Because the money it is using to promote what it sees as good (and the money it wants to get out of paying to discourage what it thinks is bad) is government money, and the government disagrees with the Church. Why should the government provide taxpayer dollars to the Catholic Church so it can discriminate in favor of straight marriage and against gay marriage? You (and the Catholic Church) seem to be deeply concerned about how your tax dollars get used when it comes to abortion. Can’t you grant that other people are concerned how their tax dollars are used by the Archdiocese to promote its own agenda?
From the viewpoint of gay people and other people who believe in gay rights, the Archdiocese is not a friend. As I have pointed out before, the Archdiocese campaigned against this bill before they knew how it would affect them, because the Catholic Church is opposed to any gay rights legislation at all. It is not merely that they want to be exempted from its provisions. They tried to keep it from happening at all.
Kurt, a “Washington insider” from over on Vox Nova said
on November 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I had today the perverse and paradoxical thought that the view underlying the comments too is a very old-fashioned Catholic attitude: Error Has No Rights!
Margaret,
Of course, the position of the Church is that gay people have no rights — and certainly no rights that may be guaranteed by law. It is simply a fact that the Church opposes any and all gay-rights legislation. If they had taken a similar position or race during the civil rights movement, they would have recommended that black people try to lighten their skin as much as possible and pass for white.
I refer everyone, once again, to Father Martin’s piece over on America.
on November 17th, 2009 at 9:16 am
DN: I am under the impression from reading the New York Times (the arbiter in such matters), that you are mistaken about the position of the Church, i.e., “gay people have no rights.” I think the church recognizes non-discrimination rules in housing, employment, access to public venues, etc. As far as I know those rights are guaranteed for everyone (well, for all American citizens and legal residents) irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The church is opposed to gay marriage and to legislation permitting it. As you well know, a majority of Americans agrees with this position (at least at the moment), though perhaps not for the same reasons as the RCC.
Jim Martin raises the question of pastoral care for homosexual persons. Since Jim lives in NYC just as I do, he could have easily answered his own questions at least at the local level. Many parishes do minister to everyone who comes to their door, including gays, maybe even especially to gays; in some parishes gays minister to everyone else.
on November 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Irene Baldwin: thanks very much for the info….
on November 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I think the church recognizes non-discrimination rules in housing, employment, access to public venues, etc. As far as I know those rights are guaranteed for everyone (well, for all American citizens and legal residents) irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Margaret,
From reading Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Revised statement issued on July 22, 1992, I don’t see how anyone would conclude that the Church approves of any anti-discrimination language in which gay men or lesbians are a protected group.
As I read the document, it says
• It is not legitimate to included gays as a protected class, since unlike race or national origin, homosexuality is an “objective disorder.”
• Only unjust discrimination is objectionable, and it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account in any number of areas such as employment of teachers, coaches, and in the military
• Homosexual persons have rights to housing and employment. “Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.” Objectively ordered external conduct would clearly include two partners living together, whether as a committed gay couple, as domestic partners, or as a married couple.
• Civil rights protection for gays puts us on the slippery slope toward affirmative action for gays.
• Chaste homosexual persons don’t need the protection of the law, because they keep their orientation secret. You can’t be discriminated against if nobody knows you are a homosexual.
• “[T]here is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.”
In sum, is opposed to gay-rights legislation of any kind because it believes gay people (that is, self-accepting homosexuals who identify as gay, have partners, get married, and so on) should not exist. It believes that people with a homosexual orientation should remain celibate and should keep their orientation a secret and they won’t have any problems.
on November 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Why should the government provide taxpayer dollars to the Catholic Church so it can discriminate in favor of straight marriage and against gay marriage? ”
It doesn’t. It provides taxpayer dollars to the Catholic Church so the Catholic Church can provide social services.
Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is a religious institution, it is entitled to a certain latitude to operate in society in accordance with its religious beliefs and mission. This has been the case with religious institutions in the US virtually since the inception of the republic. For example, churches can “discriminate” in their hiring practices by favoring adherents over non-adherents.
As it’s been reported (relying here on the link you provided in the first comment to the original post), what the church is requesting in this instance is an exemption from that particular requirement of the law. these sorts of exemptions are pretty common as I understand it, and seem to be a reasonable accommodation that is very much in line with the American tradition of tolerance in religious practice.
on November 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“I don’t see how anyone would conclude that the Church approves of any anti-discrimination language in which gay men or lesbians are a protected group. ”
You provided documentation in the earlier thread that would allow a person to conclude that the church opposes unjust discrimination in matters like employment and housing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also supports that conclusion, cf paragraph 2358.
on November 17th, 2009 at 11:56 am
David – without disputing your quotes from the 1992 document, you can’t extrapolate from it to conclude that gay people have no rights. I agree with Margaret’s take on where the church is. I do understand that you and many other folks would find some of those passages from that document, and the various other documents issued during our lifetimes, to be repugnant. I’d like to think that a lot of time has passed since 1992, and the church has continued to think about these issues and continued to move in the direction of pastoral sensitivity and acceptance to the farthest extent possible.
on November 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
You provided documentation in the earlier thread that would allow a person to conclude that the church opposes unjust discrimination in matters like employment and housing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also supports that conclusion, cf paragraph 2358.
Jim,
The Church opposes unjust discrimination, but it says
How many other kinds of “just” discrimination are there? It seems clear to me that the Church would support the denial of housing to gay partners, because in openly living together, they are engaging in “behavior to which no one has any conceivable right.” The Church’s argument is that unless your are a chaste, closeted homosexual, you are engaging in objectively disordered behavior, and while it may be unjust to discriminate against people whose sexual orientation is objectively disordered, it is just to discriminate against people who engage in objectively disordered behavior.
on November 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I’d like to think that a lot of time has passed since 1992, and the church has continued to think about these issues and continued to move in the direction of pastoral sensitivity and acceptance to the farthest extent possible.
Jim,
I am quoting documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued under Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now pope. What more authoritative and official Church statements exist? These things do not have expiration dates. The only thing that could alter them are further statements from the CDF and the pope.
There may be many sympathetic priests on the local level and parishes that welcome gay people. Read Father Martin in America on the subject. But the CDF speaks for the official Church. And I see no sign that there has been any mellowing. When those documents were promulgated, chaste homosexuals were not barred from the priesthood. Now they are. I don’t see that as progress.
on November 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Jim, if the city provided these services through its own employees, they would be treated on a non-discriminatory basis. Governments (federal, state, and local) have long “flowed down” certain employment practices onto their contractors so as to continue in force and in effect these kinds of social policies.
However, in all honesty, I don’t know exactly whether this is an employer qua employer problem or an employer qua contractor problem. The D.C. law I quoted above applies to employers, and I don’t think (but I am not sure) that CC would be exempt even if it had zero contracts. I am fairly certain hospitals and other clearly non-church organizations would not be exempt. But in the case of contracts, as I stated above, it is simply the right of the government to impose neutral, generally applicable restraints on employment practices utilized by their contractors. The contractor’s recourse is not to take the money. So long as the restraint isn’t being imposed on the Church itself (e.g., hiring church organists or other types of ministers, which, parenthetically, the government could not fund), it is almost always considered to be reasonable.
So here’s a little rule of thumb: if it’s legal for the city to give the funds (not an establishment clause violation) it’s probably legal for the city to put neutral, generally applicable conditions on their receipt (not a free excercise clause violation). I say probably because sometimes there are considerations on whether there is a pretext or subterfuge question about the intent of the law. It’s pretty clear to me that the gay marriage initiative is not a subterfuge to regulate the Catholic Church.
The issue here is the status of CC and whether it deserves to be given a break that no other D.C. employer/contractor is given, in terms of carving out its own social policies, especially when the activities are being carried out with government funds.
CC did not meet the definition of a church organization in California, and that’s why it was told it had to provide coverage for contraception. It wasn’t premised on its contracts with a public agency.
on November 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I ned to add two things:
-When arguments are based on rights, it’s often fudging the problem of whether the exercise of such right(s) is the right thing to do.
I think most if not all here recognize the right of the Abp of Washington and the Church in general to take the stance they did. I thought the thread was about was this the right thing to do.
(Just as the new Commonweal Editorial raises questions of credibility about the pastoral forthcoming on matrimony, it strikes me here that questions of genuinity -say about whether gay couples adoptiong harm children – can be raised.)
Then there’s a the pastoral impact. I thought Fr. Martin’s question was not about what the parish priesr should do for his parishoners, but the impact of a large pronunciamento about those parishoners. It reminded me of a letter published in Commonweal a while back from Fr. Aldo Tos (also from NY at St. Joesephsin the village) in which he cited the extra problems he had due to pronouncements from on high.
I thought there was general consensus here that some compromise would be better than where we are at, but I also think the issue of how the Church managed it -through good bishops or not – is highly relevant as well as the Fr. Martin question which I think went basically unanswered.
on November 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
We have here the issue of what THE THE CHURCH says and what the the church does. Pastoral practice has always diverged from official pronouncements. Expecting those pronouncements on certain subjects (contraception, abortion, married priests, ordination of women, same-sex blessings, name your favorite) to change under the current regime is an exercise in frustration and futility. Jimmy Mac many posts back announced that he was a Holy Redeemer Catholic (i.e., a Catholic who was a locovore in his parish). Many others do as well. I suspect that throughout history that is the main story of being Catholic–or not.
on November 17th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“It seems clear to me that the Church would support the denial of housing to gay partners, because in openly living together, they are engaging in “behavior to which no one has any conceivable right.” ”
Can you point to any examples?
on November 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
David N.: “What more authoritative and official Church statements exist? These things do not have expiration dates. ”
Margaret: “Pastoral practice has always diverged from official pronouncements. ”
Right. And the two – official pronouncements and pastoral practice – aren’t mutually exclusive. Nor does the influence between the two all flow in the direction from pronouncement on high to pastoral practice on the ground, regardless of how fervently some folks in Rome may wish it were so. Those who possess teaching authority emerge from the pastoral side of the church – even if they haven’t experienced it first-hand since entering the seminary – and we may hope that they cannot successfully wall out the influence and impressions from those who are out among the people.
It’s largely true that documents don’t have expiration dates but neither is everything in them timeless. That phrase “the church has always taught … ” is a handy little device for adapting to an evolving world. May it be invoked on this topic when the time is ripe.
on November 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
At the end of the Day, if you compromise The Truth, you will always end with error.
on November 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Nancy,
If you were the landlord of a large apartment building with many vacant apartments, and two men (or two women) who told you they were gay and were married to each other applied to rent an apartment in your building, would you accept them as tenants, or would you turn them down?
on November 18th, 2009 at 1:47 am
“At the end of the Day, if you compromise The Truth, you will always end with error.”
Yes, dear Nancy, too true. As Aristotle put it, “A small mistake at the beginning leads to a large mistake at the end.’ And the same thing is true of the assumptions of conservatives as it is of liberals. So beware of your own assumptions — they could also be false.
on November 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am
If I believe we are called to conserve all of The Truth, and that The Truth applies to all Persons, does that mean that I am a liberal conservative?
on November 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Here is an update from Kurt on Vox Nova, whom I have described as a “Washington insider.”
Consequently, it would seem that the two issues the Archdiocese was claiming would infringe on their religious liberty would actually have no impact on them at all.
on November 18th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Well!!!! All this tempest for nought?
on November 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“Employee health insurance is governed by ERISA and other federal laws that have a state pre-emption. Therefore so long as their is not federal same sex marriage, they are under no obligation to change their policies.”
Hmm. The projected sequence of events, as sketched by the Archdiocese, is as follows:
* DC City Council enacts new rules
* Catholic contractors continue to enforce policies not in compliance with these new rules.
* DC determines that Catholic contractors are out of compliance and cancels their contracts.
If that ERISA point is true, then it would seem the church would have legal recourse to have the courts reinstate their contracts.
on November 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Jim, it appears that you are a liberal conservative.:-)
on November 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
If that ERISA point is true, then it would seem the church would have legal recourse to have the courts reinstate their contracts.
Kurt has very reliable inside knowledge of what goes on in Washington, but I am waiting for confirmation of what he has said. What I will say is that if what Kurt says is true, it is the Archdiocese that announced it would not comply with the pending regulations and therefore would lose its contracts. Kurt also says that a compromise was being worked on until the Archdiocese went public, and that torpedoed the compromise. In other words, if what Kurt says about ERISA and insurance coverage is true, the Archdiocese — not DC legislators — unnecessarily precipitated the whole brouhaha.
on November 18th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
If it is true that ERISA has a State pre-emption, then the Church would have legal recourse to have the Courts reinstate their contracts. The DC legislators precipitated “the whole brouhaha”, by enacting new rules based upon a false premise to begin with.
on November 19th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“Jim, it appears that you are a liberal conservative.:-)”
Nancy, that’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me :-)
on November 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
JP: “Nicest”? You must be exaggerating.