FORCED TO CLOSE. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington speaks about the " Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" document at the National Press Club in Washington Nov. 20. The archbishop ordered the closing of Catholic foster care and adoption programs with city contracts after the Council of the District of Columbia legalized same-sex “marriage.”
WASHINGTON — When the Council of the District of Columbia signaled its plan to legalize same-sex “marriage” in November 2009, Archbishop Donald Wuerl warned that the move could force the closing of Catholic foster care and adoption programs with city contracts.
In late February, the archbishop made good on that warning, ending Catholic Charities’ city contracts for child-placement services.
Then, on March 1, a day before same-sex “marriage” became legal in the district, the other shoe dropped: Spousal benefits would no longer be available for new hires at Catholic Charities or for staff who might marry in the future.
“Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health-plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees,” stated a memo issued by Catholic Charities’ President and CEO Edward Orzechowski.
“We sincerely regret that we have to make this change,” the memo continued, “but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.”
The conclusion of a painful internal debate within the archdiocese, Archbishop Wuerl’s decision underscores the challenge legal same-sex “marriage” poses for Catholic bishops charged with defending traditional marriage while securing the future stability of their social agencies.
From the beginning, the archbishop’s sober reaction sparked criticism.
Several city council members openly dismissed the Church’s concerns, with Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) describing its stance as “somewhat childish.” News stories and letters to the editor in The Washington Post featured skeptical reactions from local Catholics who worried that their Church’s position was intolerant and needlessly jeopardized critical services to the poor.
Over the past three months, Archbishop Wuerl has struggled to gain traction for his argument that the council’s narrow religious exemption made compliance with city contracts untenable for Catholic agencies.
“Unlike legislation dealing with same-sex ‘marriage’ in other parts of the country, the district offers no provision for any type of religious exemption,” noted the archbishop,, as he unveiled his new policy.
“Further, the district has redefined marriage in such a way that anyone working with the city must demonstrate they are in compliance with the implications of this new law,” he said.
During the ensuing months since the D.C. Council first took up the issue of same-sex “marriage,” some local Catholic leaders and donors questioned the need for drastic action.
‘San Francisco Option’
Still, a significant number of legal scholars, including some who endorse same-sex “marriage,” have argued that the D.C. Council’s language was too restrictive and the archbishop was right to challenge it
The archdiocese submitted a letter to the elections board calling for a referendum on same-sex marriage, and Archbishop Wuerl directed local pastors to raise the issue from the pulpit.
The referendum effort hit a final roadblock this week, when Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts Jr. denied a request by same-sex “marriage” opponents to stay the District’s law. The following day same-sex couples lined up to apply for a marriage license.
“There are council members who have argued that religious freedom means that priests won’t have to marry same-sex couples. My reaction is: You can’t be serious; that is not religious freedom,” said Robert Destro, a law professor at The Catholic University of America and the director and founder of its Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion.
Archbishop Wuerl reached a similar verdict.
“As an agency supervising foster care and adoption placements, Catholic Charities must confirm the suitability of the couple with whom the child will be placed. If we signed the new city contracts, that requirement would bring the agency into an active role in confirming this new definition of marriage,” said the archbishop.
The plan to close the child-placement programs follows the path of several other dioceses that have grappled with the advent of legal same-sex “marriage.”
But Archbishop Wuerl and Catholic Charities’ administrators still had to tackle a second conundrum introduced through the specific language of the district’s new law: Could they continue to provide spousal benefits without lending moral credence to same-sex “marriage”? Catholic Charities here employs about 900 people.
Some advisers suggested that the archbishop could finesse the issue by adopting the so-called “San Francisco option” — provide benefits to one other individual residing in an employee’s household.
The San Francisco option was initiated by then-San Francisco Archbishop William Levada (now a cardinal and prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to bring his agencies into compliance with a city law governing benefits for same-sex domestic partners — in a state that still upheld the traditional definition of marriage.
By contrast, Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., confronted a new law that redefined marriage to include same-sex unions and directed agencies with city contracts to grant benefits to all legal spouses.
Archbishop Wuerl concluded that compliance with the new law might “create confusion.” In his view, the only alternative was to “restructure the whole benefits plan while still allowing Catholic Charities to continue its service to the poor and needy.”
Another Challenge Ahead
No doubt the decision to end spousal benefits will provoke even more controversy — and could affect the recruitment and retention of Catholic Charities’ employees.
Catholic Charities’ administrators have struggled to minimize the impact of the recent policy changes. For example, by the time the archbishop had closed the archdiocese’s child-placement services, Orzechowski had transferred the entire caseload to another agency, the National Center for Children and Families. It shared Catholic Charities’ philosophy on forming partnerships with foster families and securing permanent placements for children.
“We were looking for an agency that would take all of the children, families, siblings and staff. That was the best and least troublesome approach from a child’s point of view,” said Orzechowski.
At present, Catholic Charities receives about $20 million from the district for a spectrum of social services, including homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Archbishop Wuerl sought to protect those remaining contracts, even as he defended the Church’s right to provide services in accordance with its moral precepts.
When news reports first registered the archdiocese’s concerns about the district’s same-sex “marriage” bill, opponents of the Church’s stance suggested it should be disqualified from participating in city contracts.
Meanwhile, experts who agree with archdiocesan policies on foster care and adoption regret that its natural-law arguments have become a flashpoint in the culture wars.
“Hostility toward Christian morality is leading many people to ignore the science that tells us what is good for children. Children do best when both a mother and father live in the home,” said Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, author of Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope, a textbook published by the American Psychological Association. Fitzgibbons teaches a class called Psychological and Neurological Sciences: Gender, Marriage and Family at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Washington, D.C.
For now, the archdiocese doesn’t anticipate any further disruption of its social services. But the Baltimore Archdiocese may soon be drawn into a similar struggle: Maryland’s attorney general just proposed that the state recognize same-sex marriages performed outside its borders.
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Danielle Bean: Secrets of a 73-Year Marriage
Matthew Warner: Obama Supports Your Freedom to "Worship"?
Comments
Post a Comment
It is reassuring that we have bishops who are willing to clearly explain and defend our Catholic beliefs.
God bless Archbishop Donald Wuerl and all who defend our faith.
I am truly devastated to read of this. I cannot imagine the pain that Jesus Christ must feel at seeing the institution which claims to uphold his teachings deny access to proper healthcare to adults and their children.
As a lifelong Catholic, I fear that the church will not recover from this decision, particularly in light of past activities perceived as denying
the protection of children. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has increasingly become synonymous with cruelty - a fact that will ultimately lead people away from Christ’s message. Very sad times.
To repeat what was said by the first commenter, it is reassuring that we have bishops who are willing to clearly explain and defend our Catholic beliefs. God bless Archbishop Donald Wuerl and all who defend our faith. I only wish all our Bishops would be as courageous and orthodox, if they were we wouldn’t be in these situations. Too bad some Catholics don’t understand what it means to be Catholic. The book, “Catholic for Dummies” gives a great explanation. Thanks to the NC Register for keeping us informed and educated.
The Roman Catholic bishop asserts that he is being “forced” to end spousal health benefits. So the organization that is spreading hatred and bigotry calls itself the victim!! Other Christian Churches, including other Roman Catholic dioceses, have found ways to maintain their own (however bigoted) dogma while also living within the current world. The Washington DC Roman Catholic bishop just wants to point fingers, pout, and spread animus.
Lisa,
As a “lifelong” Catholic you should know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not negotiable based on the ebbs and flows of societal fads. Same sex marriage is not only against the teaching of the Catholic Church but against natural law as well. Do you deny this..?
The primary role of a Bishop is to lead and tend his flock; instructing them in matters of the faith and protecting them from scandal. This is exactly what the Bishop is doing in this case. Note that the services for the poor and needy are not being affected – the change is the cancellation of benefits for spouses in a district where same-sex couples are legally recognized. There is no institution in human history that has done more for the poor and needy than the Catholic Church – this work continues to this day.
By the way, as a lifelong Catholic I will assume that you have received the sacrament of Confirmation. If so then you have a responsibility to know and proclaim your faith, to instruct and explain to others what the Church teaches and why - not to simply lament that some people may leave the Church.
In the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen, “There are not 100 people in the world who hate Catholicism, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly believe Catholicism to be”.
VH
Archbishop Wuerhl did the right thing, the only thing he could do. I wish that wasn’t so and hope that it is temporary and that the City Council regains it’s sanity.
Lisa, the City Council of DC is the one to blame for this. Your arguments are nothing more than an attempt to distract from the real issue which is freedom of religion.
Lisa,
As a “lifelong” Catholic you should know that the teachings of the Catholic Church are not negotiable based on the ebbs and flows of societal fads. Same sex marriage is not only against the teaching of the Catholic Church but against natural law as well. Do you deny this..? The primary role of a Bishop is to lead and tend his flock; instructing them in matters of the faith and protecting them from scandal. This is exactly what the Bishop is doing in this case. Note that the services for the poor and needy are not being affected – the change is the cancellation of benefits for spouses in a district where same-sex couples are legally recognized. There is no institution in human history that has done more for the poor and needy than the Catholic Church – this work continues to this day. By the way, as a lifelong Catholic I will assume that you have received the sacrament of Confirmation. If so then you have a responsibility to know and proclaim your faith, to instruct and explain to others what the Church teaches and why - not to simply lament that some people may leave the Church. In the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen, “There are not 100 people in the world who hate Catholicism, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly believe Catholicism to be”.
I grew up a god fearing confirmed Catholic lesbian women who has not stepped in a Catholic Church for anything other than a family obligation since roughly the middle of my undergrad degree. I have a deep and firm spiritual belief in God and Jesus and all of the humanistic doctrine of the Catholic Church. I even felt, for a time that, I was in fact a sinner for engaging in a same sex relationship just as my straight Catholic roommate was who was having premarital sex. However I believed that my sins would be absolved and my final judgment would be between god and myself. I left the church not because of my sexual orientation but because the sermons seemed to me to becoming more about the damnation than about loving god supporting one another and learning to be a good person. It was through this process that I realized that loving my partner with the blessing of god and raising our children to be loving charitable members of our religious community was not a sin. It is a shame that the Catholic Church lost the opportunity to have in their flock four very loving and giving family members who have found a home with god elsewhere. Accepting homosexual people, married or not, dedicated to charity will only add to your institution. PS I feel blessed that I was born and raised in Massachusetts where we are valued for having a stable marriage.
I wrote a guest post for the Chicago Tribune on this issue (see http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/03/sister-anne-flanagan-in-dc-catholic-charities-between-a-rock-and.html). If the issue were racism and the Church stood firm, she would be applauded for not compromising her identity. It’s hard for people to see that when they do not have a solid grasp of why the Church cares about marriage in the first place, but the stand being taken here is solidly based on the Catholic Faith, and is in no way discriminatory. Expect to see more of the same, though.
It would probably be good for all our social service agencies to withdraw from government funding: but how can truly “Catholic” service to the needy continue? Will Catholics themselves carry out these works of mercy personally, rather than attempt to simply fund them?
Is extending benefits the same as sanctioning a union? Most of us choosing to work in a social services field are not doing so to become wealthy. We tend to be well educated people with a desire to serve their community. My work covers my family and those of my co-workers without judging any marriage. Many of the “straight” families I encounter would not like their marriages to be scrutinized as holy unions. I pray that bigotry is not the issue here.
“Forced” to end benefits. Interesting. Who, exactly, held a gun to your head, Mr. Wuerl? No, I will not call you “Bishop,” for you are not a man of God - you are a man of Hate.
The religion you supposedly uphold was founded on such teachings as “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Love. Yet all I see these days from organizations such as the Catholic Church is hatred, bigotry, judgment (thought you were supposed to leave that one up to your God?), and more hatred.
Another comment mentioned that “the teachings of the Catholic Church are not negotiable based on the ebbs and flows of societal fads”. All right, then. Live by beliefs that are thousands of years out of date, fail to adapt to a changing world, and your organization will soon follow the natural law you keep mentioning - and die out. You are losing members, when not actively driving them away, by your actions. The Catholic Church’s days are numbered. You’re a relic. The end can’t come soon enough.
It was failure to follow Christ and Catholic teaching that resulted in the recent scandals within the Church. Those scandals were almost entirely homosexual assaults on young men. Now homosexuals berate the Church for its defense of marriage as understood from the beginning and as explicitly defined by Christ. The roaring lion is among us, devouring who he can; we are well served by shepherds who recognize and confront the lies that are being enacted into laws.
I support the decision of Archbishop Wuerl and Catholic Charities. It would be a sad and perilous day for Constitutional law and for religious freedom if any government could coerce the Church (or any person) about what to believe, and coerce any action contrary to longstanding beliefs.
I appreciate the dialog here with out judgment. Most of my moral character was formed as a member of the church and by two loving and accepting devout Catholics. I am a charitable person because that is what was taught to me throughout my life not only from my parents but also CCD classes, confirmation classes and CYO groups. I wish that my family would be embraced by the church as it has by my parents. I realize the attempt is futile and I hold no hope for change in my lifetime and have moved on. However that being said that the business of being charitable is a business. It receives state and federal funding and discrimination is discrimination and is illegal.
Is denying benefits to charitable people any different than denying services to a homeless man because he is gay?
TO SAM.
Yes, it is different. We are to love the sinner but hate the sin. Helping the sinner to sin is not charity. Giving alcohol to the homeless alcoholic is not different from condoning sodomy - in that regard you might have a point.
Sodomy is all you have??? Come on I expect better from this intelligent group. Definition - intercourse via the an**, committed by a man with a man or woman - that’s not me but may include Mr and Mrs Harrison in accounting - you better stop all benefits to everyone
Steve and Mark,
Marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2003. We have not had any negative effects to our economy, to hetero marriage and god has not struck us “sinners” down. I have not been discriminated nearly as much as before the law took affect - in fact, I have had many people say that they were surprised that there are very little differences there are in our families. The divorce rate in MA is low and we are raising healthy well adjusted heterosexual and homosexual children. It is interesting that the rate of homosexuality in children raised by same sex parents in the same as in “traditional” families. So the “recruiting” new members argument is moot. My marriage with my partner was officiated by a heterosexual minister in a place of worship and the church is still standing all these years later.
I don’t hate you for having “unnatural” sex with your wife - I don’t discriminate against you because you had sex before you were married. It is time the Catholic Church stopped the campaign of fear and hate. Don’t perform the marriages - that’s ok. Please don’t allow your hate and fear to come between you and someone who wants to help other people.
SAM,
You are a poser. Nice use of the comments section to try and pollute the discussion.
We fear and hate sin. You should as well - for the sake of your soul.
Papism dehumanizes gay people.
To Sam and others. Sodomy is just one of the many sins spoken of and warned about in the scriptures(though by giving the word “tolerance” and “compassion” a higher place than scripture teaches is the true LOVE of God, the media has given Sodomy top public billing). Is it in the name of tolerance and compassion that we do good or is it in the name of Jesus that we do good. Is it really in the name of Jesus that we seek the passing of laws that will change the meaning of Christian marriage? If it is, nobody states their case with those words. The effect of all sin is the obstruction of a constant flow of God’s grace—meaning light that God will cast upon every decision we make in this life—but we have to ask for it. The worst of all sin and most surely fatal is “not to believe there is this God”, but all sin, those He proclaimed to be mortal or those He told us are not mortal are clearly thoughts ,words, and deeds that are not pleasing to Him. God is love—He offered us love and “demanded” nothing. He wants nothing except that we love Him. He wants our love and for that we have His promise of Life everlasting in Heaven. Here’s a prayer: Abba Father God, I beseech you, please be the beginning and the end of every thing I say and do. Prompt all my actions with your divine grace. Complete them with your almighty power. Let my every thought,word and deed be aimed at those things most pleasing in your sight. Can you say that is not a good prayer? Read the prayer again. It is not directed to the sin of sodomy alone but to all sins, most of which are hidden to all but Jesus, who God the Father has said will be our judge. The true peace of mind, heart and soul is in this prayer.
To those who are mad at the Church for upholding its teachings,all I can say is that I pray for you and love you. The reason the Church does not allow same sex marriage is natural law gets violated and Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture both teach homosexuality is wrong. Jesus founded the Church and set up a way to transmit its teachings throughout the ages.They are not antiquated but illuminating. I don’t know one early church father who supports homosexuality. No Protestant church up to recent times who supported it officially. These same Protestant churches up until 1930 all condemned abortion,homosexuality,and divorce on biblical grounds and natural law grounds. Some of you say you left the church and think it will die off. The Episcopal Church was the first to change its teachings on divorce,contraception,women’s ordination, and its acceptance of same sex marriage. Now its a progressive’s dream. It is now bleeding members like mad. There is at least 7 Anglican(Episcopal)churches;subgroups, I would say who all claim their right. It’s in complete meltdown. The traditional Anglican Communion,450,000 have just asked to reunite with Rome. We are growing by approx. 800,000 people a year in the U.S. alone. Jesus in Matthews Gospel said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. This Church will be here ‘til the end of time.This Church loves you but it can’t violate its teachings. I ask you to really study its teachings and come home. God Bless you all.
U.S. Catholics, wake up. Recently in Holland, gay-activists called off their in-church disruptions only after a local parish gave in. Unlike Holland, the U.S. has the “free exercise” of religion clause in our First Amendment. Hence, without depending on local bishops and priests, it can be invoked by parishioners to legally stop such gay interference inside Catholic churches in America. Church-invading ‘gays’ who use the term ‘homophobia’ to demonize ‘straights’ as fearing irrationally, have, via their violations of “free exercise” rights, ironically uncovered a New Strain of “homophobia”, one in which the “gene-irrationale” is nowhere found:
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/163/8198
The important world-wide picture is that ‘gays’ are asserting themselves as the “source of truth”, “enabled” via “scholars” and “theologians” to decide what God conveyed about homosexual acts. Apparently, ‘gay-Catholic’ activists want to control the magisterium. However, dissenting groups lack “standing” in the Church and so have no judicial or catechetical influence over the world-wide magisterium. Such gay-activists “must” then resort to name-calling, local threats or disturbances which will become counter-productive to their cause. Due to altered religious structures from the 16th century Reformation, gay-activists are able to have more success with some major Protestant denominations.
When Jimmy Akin in 2004 wrote that “The [scriptural/theological] argument [against gay-marriage] can be constructed entirely along the lines of natural law, avoiding the “separation of Church and state” canard,” he was and remains correct. However, note well that there is an all-out war against the truth of the Natural Moral Law, the central obstacle to gay-domination.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411bt.asp
As Akin also noted, it is important for all Christians to realize that gay-activists are in the process of FORCING “gay marriage” on Americans. If we give in to their threats and force, they will control for decades. And this generation—“we”—will have given-in out of fear and apathy, to thus deny blessed freedom to those who live after us.
A necessary DUTY of the USCCB in this war is to update “Always our children” by dropping their misleading term “orientation” appearing 21 times, replacing it with “inclination” and making several other magisterium-faithful fixes. Sadly, the same month, September, 1997, when the Catholic Catechism was so-updated, the USCCB document was fresh with “orientation” in over-abundance.
VH: I can’t help but wonder about the teachings of which you speak. I was raised to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ – teachings which speak of love, compassion, and tolerance.
Very often, His friendship and embracing of those who were shunned by societal ‘norms’ placed Him in a position to be discriminated against and shunned Himself. His closest friends were those considered to be breaking church law, yet Christ made it very clear that God’s law supersedes man’s judgment.
The question I was taught to ask in all situations is “What would Christ do?”
Nowhere, in Christ’s words, do I find evidence that He would support preventing children from obtaining proper Healthcare. In fact, He would find this practice an abomination of all that is good and just.
To even be engaged in such a dialogue shows how shamefully some members of the church have subverted His teachings to suit their needs.
It is reminiscent of the actions of the Pharisees and Sadducees who interpreted God’s law to support their own agendas of hatred, greed, and bigotry - the same groups who advocated for His death.
It frightens me to think that we are reliving the same self-serving subversion that existed in Christ’s time. Have we learned nothing from His sacrifice?
“When you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”
I pray for those who sit and listen to His words and yet hear them through the filters of their own agendas.
>>”The question I was taught to ask in all situations is “What would Christ do?”<<
The Church Christ instituted on earth INCLUDES those appointed by Him. I applaud our strong bishops. Understandably, some will disagree with them. However, they HAVE spoken.
>>”Nowhere, in Christ’s words, do I find evidence that He would support preventing children from obtaining proper Healthcare. “<<
An employer not covering someone under their policy is NOWHERE NEAR preventing that person from getting healthcare. Goodness, look at the number of employers not providing health insurance coverage to their employees. Must we assume they all have malicious intentions?
>>”loving my partner with the blessing of god and raising our children to be loving charitable members of our religious community was not a sin.<<
According to who? You? God did make you a female, so my guess is that living contrary to that is not what he intended. Attractions can be disordered. Attractions do not have to be acted upon. G. K Chesterton noted something to the effect of needing a Church NOT to tell him that he was right when he was right, but to tell him he was WRONG when he thought he was right.
>>”The religion you supposedly uphold was founded on such teachings as “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”<<
Ah, but Jesus did remind persons to “go and sin no more.” Love thy neighbor, yes; help thy neighbor to sin, no. If you truly can lead a sin-free life, by virtue you will also be loving your neighbor. G.K Chesterton, again - “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Christ defined marriage: one man and one woman.
This Archdiocese’s decision has relieved me of the guilt I have felt since I left the Catholic church. This decision only underlines the absolute hypocrisy in the Church: claims of “morality” are used to defend the implementation of policies that hurt everyone. Think of the families that will be punished by this decision - it’s not “the homosexuals,” it’s the families of those who have dedicated their lives in service of the Church!
There is no defense for this decision.
>>”...claims of “morality” are used to defend the implementation of policies that hurt everyone. Think of the families that will be punished by this decision -...”<<
Hmmm, that is exactly what I would claim about the Council of the District of Columbia’s plan to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Put the onus where it belongs. D.C. could have granted a religious exemption. They chose not to.
Lots of “us” in the Mass discussion. Any value in a Mass the priest says by himself? Yes, of course there is. It is the Pascal Mystery - the sacrifice of the Mass, the continuation of Christ’s offering of Himself to the Father on our behalf. We are not the focus of the Mass but since Vatican II it seems that we are and the comments here reflect that.
Are externals important? Why is this a question? Isn’t it obvious - we are human and externals are massively important. Try showing respect and love without externals - but, why would you try? Probably because you lack respect and love.
My vote is with Zimrak.
Oops - wrong thread.
Faithful Catholics: do become aware of the clever STRATEGY being used to undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ by undermining God’s design of marriage as between one man and one woman. Earlier, one tactic noted was gay-activists’ denying the Natural Moral Law in order to assert their acts ARE “natural” – just “different” and occurring at a lower frequency in the population due to minority status. In DC, their cleverness even goes back to 1978 via a provision put into the DC Human Rights Act to outlaw public votes on matters of oft-asserted rights of ‘gays’ and other minority groups.
Consider the selfishness of their agenda: despite no broad societal support for changing the meaning of marriage, they are willing, even anxious, to deny the general Catholic population its protection from the “free exercise of religion” clause in our 1st Amendment. De facto, ‘gays’ insist Catholics REJECT Romans 3:8 – ‘do no evil that good may come from it’: Catholics are expected to accept gravely sinning by placing children with gay-couples in an environment of abominations before God, so that gays may achieve some supposed “good”. Bishop Donald Wuerl will not reject Romans 3:8. Faithful Catholics will oppose this totalitarian move.
No doubt, ‘gay-strategists’ MISREAD the 2007 capitulation of Connecticut Catholic hospitals re the ‘Morning After Pill’ and likely expect the same result, here. But, unlike that special case, what is at stake in DC has ZERO room for the kind of “prudential judgment” cited there. The serious anti-Catholic bias showing in a DC Council member who reportedly said our Church’s position is “somewhat childish” challenges Justice John Robert’s perhaps too facile description that deference to DC Courts is given for “matters of exclusively local concern”. If American Catholics are to be coerced toward sinning against Romans 3:8, it is a NATIONAL concern!
The first word that comes to mind is hypocrisy not because the Catholic Church isn’t firm in their beliefs but because the church is choosing which “natural laws” to support and which to abhor. The bible is a just a book of stories passed down generation to generation. It is a good representation of our history but how can you prove it is 100% accurate. Am I correct in stating that we no longer abide by or agree with stoning a woman for infidelity nor do we burn witches at the stake? Did you extend benefits to couples whom were on their second marriage before this exclusion?
If the church is so against gay marriage how can the church hire “sinners” they are denying benefits to in the first place in the fist place? Please clear up the confusion and tell me just exactly how the church has been handcuffed into denying benefits to all spouses.
This is discrimination - just an attempt for the church to “fall on it’s sword” and act as a martyr against the big bad sinners.
We are not talking about accepting gay marriage we are talking about following a law from a district from which you receive MILLIONS of dollars.
I think the problem is that so many in this country lack any appreciation for the freedom of religion, such that there are few defenders when politicians try to violate it. While congress is prohibted from violating freedom of religion under the First Amendment, the constitution doesn’t prevent the States or the District of Columbia from violating it. The District’s gun ban was found to be unconsitutional last year, so I expect the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide this case as well. I am very happy that Archbishop Wuerl is at the helm on this one.
It is hardly possible to convince one who thinks the bible is “just a book of stories passed down generation to generation” to see that God has the power to deliver truth to people, as begun with Abraham. However, apart from moral truths coming from God about sex, mankind’s physical nature, which we can objectively assess and measure structurally & medically shows the human body is not robustly designed for homosexual sex compared to heterosexual sex.
Necessity to use technology (e.g. condoms & other barriers) to keep homosexual sex “safe” is not consistent with omniscient, omnipotent God who designed heterosexual sex, admittedly not entirely problem-free due to the fall in Eden. Perhaps you might see that hypocrisy is not really involved. With great differences in vulnerabilities, the bible is affirmed in its message against homosexual sex in several ways. Where the bible can have error are on matters not related to morals and doctrine; so, yes, presuming 100 % correct is incorrect - via non-essential matters. The great diversity in interpretations of doctrine and morals comes from the history of breaks with the Catholic Church which is traceable back to Jesus with His Apostles.
As for punishments during the theocratic stage, God non-permanently chose whatever would be effective to help society stay together and grow in those days as His people “set apart”—destined by God to channel the Good News of Redemption to all mankind. Remember that God is just and so is able to more than compensate in eternity for whatever is suffered here. When men burn witches they sin terribly because they are not God and cannot offset the sufferings. I suspect it is the interaction of non-discrimination laws which account for the handcuffing. Man-made laws often fail to foresee conflicting interactions.
The DC City Council need only be considerate enough to give the usual religious exemptions simply by acknowledging that the Catholic Church is obliged to avoid encouraging gay-spouses. http://www.adw.org/news/News.asp?ID=745&Year=2010
Gays, including gay-couples, can be hired in most situations, pertinent exceptions involving factors affecting religious matters, for example. Heterosexual second marriage couples may well be sinners since Jesus is against divorce, an abomination with little exception. However, divorce, far from being good, is not inherently the antithesis of other key purposes of marriage, as is “gay-marriage”. Regarding Congress and the 1st Amendment it would be un-American to expect other than affirmation by the Supreme Court of the “free exercise of religion” provision.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.