How "Christian" of him!!

[OzzyKP]

This is starting to seem like a misleading thread title. The information I'm seeing is that the Church will continue to provide social and charitable services); it is only in cases where there is a contracted or licensed service that the District would adjudge the Church to be ineligible to provide those services on a contractual basis. If DC does not grant the exemptions that would be in keeping with the Catholic's tenets, the assumption is that the Church would no longer be eligible to be licensed or contracted to provide those services.

Yea, the spin on this issue by the atheists and anti-Catholics is ridiculous. The Church never "threatened to stop helping the poor if the city allows gay marriage" which is how this has been characterized.

DD has a good summary of what is actually going on. Of course it is much easier for the dull-witted reactionaries to twist and smear the Church on this.

I support gay marriage. I also support allowing religions to practice the tenets of their faith (whether I agree with them or not) freely. I believe every state that has passed gay marriage has granted appropriate exceptions to not punish religious institutions. Earlier I saw that Catania had discussed introducing just such an exception, I don't know what happened with that.

[MrFun]

They are both about moral issues that the Catholic Church considers of great import for it's faithful. If they can avoid compromising thier principles by not taking public funds, so much the better for them.

Elective abortions is not essential service if it's not needed to save the woman's life.

Food and shelter are basic necessities of life. So in this instance, I would think reneging on providing for the needy their most basic essentials is much more reprehensible than denying women non-essential abortion.

[MrFun]

unfunded mandate, of course it'll be the city's fault if the Church has to cut back on services. But how many married gays work for the Church?

No, it would not be the city's fault - the city is not forcing the Church to decrease its services for the needy. The archbishop in Washington DC is making a choice of his own to do so.

[DinoDoc]

Food and shelter are basic necessities of life. So in this instance, I would think reneging on providing for the needy their most basic essentials is much more reprehensible than denying women non-essential abortion.

Bull****, Fun. That's not even the issue here. The Church is still going to help the needy.

[MrFun]

From the article in OP:

The Archbishop issued a very public threat last month designed to scare city officials into backing off their commitment to marriage equality.

I can try and find out exactly what the archbishop said. But what else could the guy have threatened to do, besides renege on services for the needy?

[OzzyKP]

Uh, pretty much exactly what DD said had you bothered reading it:

D.C. Archdiocese Still Committed To Serving Despite Same-sex Marriage Bill

Washington D.C., Dec 2, 2009 (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Washington D.C. and Catholic Charities are still “committed to continuing to serve the people of the District of Columbia as we have done for more than 80 years,” despite D.C. Council members voting in favor of same-sex “marriage” in the nation's capital yesterday.

Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese said in a statement yesterday that they will move forward “with the resources available to us,” though the current legislation could threaten to cut government funding of faith-based organizations, such as Catholic Charities, if they do not compromise their religious beliefs.

On Nov. 17, Archbishop Wuerl stated that the same-sex “marriage” bill would cause the city itself to withhold contracts and licenses since Catholic Charities and other religious institutions cannot comply with city mandates to “recognize and promote” it.

Gibbs continued to say in her statement that “as the legislation moves forward, the Archdiocese of Washington will continue its dialogue with the Council to seek a balance of interests in the legislation – that of the city council to legalize same sex marriage and that of religious organizations to protect religious liberties.”

Yesterday's 11-2 vote of approval for same-sex “marriage” in D.C. is the first of two necessary in order for it to be signed into law by D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, a supporter of the bill. The second vote, to be held on Dec. 15, is expected to pass as well.

The Archdiocese of Washington D.C. concluded it's remarks yesterday by saying that Catholic Charities currently serves 68,000 people a year in the District of Columbia through a range of services including shelter, nutrition, counseling, employment and job training services, legal and health care assistance and immigration assistance.

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=99214

[Asher]

Are there any real news sources on this?

I'm tired of seeing ridiculously biased sources from either side. Grow up, people.

[OzzyKP]

How about an editorial from the Washington Post, which agrees almost entirely with the EWTN account:

Marital discord
Religious objections to the potential impact of D.C.'s same-sex marriage bill

Sunday, November 15, 2009

YOU MIGHT not realize, given the fury between Catholic Charities and the D.C. Council, that the Catholic Church is not trying to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District. Rather, the battle is over the impact that the legislation could have on the vital services it provides.

Catholic Charities is concerned that the current draft would force it to choose between upholding its religious beliefs and complying with the District's human rights law in order to maintain city contracts. The clash raises tough questions. But they strike us as solvable, if council members shelve the self-righteousness and look for solutions.
ad_icon

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment of 2009 would legalize same-sex marriage in the District. It would not require any religious organizations to carry out such marriages. But the church worries that it would have to offer health benefits to same-sex spouses of employees and facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples, both of which it says would violate its religious beliefs.

The city can ill afford to lose Catholic Charities' services at homeless shelters and in health care. It's the largest nongovernmental provider of social services in the District and certainly among the most competent.

That's why we're somewhat mystified by the complacency reflected in comments such as those of council members Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), who dismissed Catholic Charities' concerns as "somewhat childish," and David A. Catania (I-At Large), who said that the city would simply find another partner. Given the District's dismal track record with other nonprofit providers of social services -- see, for example, recent Post reports about the misspending of HIV/AIDS housing money -- we wonder at his confidence.

Church officials told us that they did not raise this worry to threaten the city. In fact, a church official told us, "We're not going to stop doing what we're doing." If it loses or gives up its contracts, the church would continue to serve the District with the resources it has and would look for ways to replace city funding. According to Catholic Charities, between 35 and 40 percent of its $54 million annual budget comes from local and federal money that flows through the District.

But need it come to that point? We favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, and we oppose discrimination. If Catholic Charities receives city money to handle adoptions, for example, it seems fair that the city can specify that same-sex couples should not be excluded.

But given the many crucial services that Catholic Charities provides that raise no questions for either side, people of goodwill ought to be able to find a way to arrange the law and the contracting to satisfy fairness without offending church principles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402280.html

[OzzyKP]

Also,

Are there any real news sources on this?

I'm tired of seeing ridiculously biased sources from either side. Grow up, people.

you accepted Mr. Fun's biased source at face value earlier in the thread and berated Ben for disagreeing or disputing it.

In this case (not to speak to any other thread or subject) Ben's understanding of the issue seems closer to reality (and to the Washington Post's account) than yours or the more hot-headed statements from others.

[MrFun]

Okay, so I get to eat my words now.

[OzzyKP]

Okay, so I get to eat my words now.

Thanks.

BTW, to DC for legalizing gay marriage.

[MrFun]

Although, I don't think the Church should see providing equal benefits as great of a violation of their bigoted stance on marriage, as compared to if they had been forced to marry gay couples.

[OzzyKP]

Although, I don't think the Church should see providing equal benefits as great of a violation of their bigoted stance on marriage, as compared to if they had been forced to marry gay couples.

Oh I'm sure they don't see it as great a violation. But religions don't really think in terms of "well, its only kinda against our fundamental beliefs."

But an exception seems easy to pull off, and I don't understand why it wasn't put in. Some other article I read said that in San Francisco the Catholic Archdiocese provides health benefits to "any unrelated household member." Which takes care of the discrimination issue without forcing the Church to recognize it as "marriage."

Since there are successful models to follow, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the DC council to be obstinate.

[Zevico]

How can the district retroactively change the terms of the contract by adding a clause? Is that what happened? If so, somebody cite it.

If the district just passed a law requiring something else independent of the contract, that's not the same thing. And in this case the church would be in breach of the contract.

You're quite right in the legal sense: if the church backs out it will be in breach of contract (assuming nothing in the bill says otherwise). But I meant in the sense of consent. The church and the government entered into an agreement according to which the church would assist the needy, according to certain terms. Why the government chose to contract with a private charity to provide services to the needy, I don't know.

Regardless, the government is adding new terms to its contract with the church in fact, not in law. That's why I object to this argument that the church is 'playing politics. It has objections to dealing with same sex couples in their capacity as such. It maintains those objections despite the bill, which effectively introduces a new 'clause' into their contract. So it breaks the deal. That's hardly dishonourable, though it may constitute a breach of contract in the legal sense.

[MrFun]

Oh I'm sure they don't see it as great a violation. But religions don't really think in terms of "well, its only kinda against our fundamental beliefs."

But an exception seems easy to pull off, and I don't understand why it wasn't put in. Some other article I read said that in San Francisco the Catholic Archdiocese provides health benefits to "any unrelated household member." Which takes care of the discrimination issue without forcing the Church to recognize it as "marriage."

Since there are successful models to follow, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the DC council to be obstinate.

Yeah - we wouldn't want to be obstinate toward bigoted people.