Washington, D.C.’s municipal government and Catholic Charities are having a showdown over the city’s intention to treat same-sex couples just as opposite-sex couples are treated.
If no accommodation is reached, Catholic Charities is likely to sever its working relationship with the city, possibly to the detriment of the city’s have nots.
The nation’s capital has a large contingent of needy people, many of whom receive various forms of care and assistance through Catholic Charities — which says it kicks in $10 million of its own funds doing those good works.
At the heart of this dispute is the church’s stance on employees in same-sex relationships.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”
This is obviously a shame, but predictable. It’s also a clear example of why church-government working arrangements in our diverse, secular society should be few and limited.
This is not to say the Catholic Church is a villain in this matter. We disagree with the church’s position, but respect its right to hold to that position, acting in accordance with its teachings and beliefs. It is, after all, a private entity with no legal obligation to do things it believes wrong.
We laud the city’s effort to treat same-sex couples as fairly as it can in the absence of a law acknowledging gay and lesbian citizens’ right to marry, if that’s what they want to do. The city has a duty to treat all people as fairly as possible, as a matter of public policy. It should not compromise fairness to meet the requirements of a particular religious community’s beliefs.
It appears the two must part ways. The city’s responsibility should be to manage that breakup as amicably as possible, at the same time minimizing loss of assistance to its needy residents.
Gay and lesbian-rights groups across the country could give the city deserved attaboys and help ease the cost to it of doing the right thing by sending a few bucks to other D.C. charities.
Some day, in a more-enlightened time, this kind of impasse will be looked back on as an unnecessary shame. In the meantime, people with differing beliefs and purposes can and should operate in parallel, with due respect for one another’s position.
When it comes to churches running government programs, “few and limited” for me means “none, to no extent”.
The “church” in this case should be seen as a large corporation–like ExxonMobile–with an agenda of its own and the monetary resources to try and buy what it wants. While it’s not clear why the Pope feels that preventing same-sex nuptials is vastly more important than helping the sick and hungry, but they have spent millions in California and Maine to that end. People are being manipulated by the Vatican much more than they ever feared they would be by electing Kennedy.
But, the “church” has tried this form of extortion before and their bluff has been called (most recently in Massachusetts). In fact, despite their own sense of self-importance, their role in the nation’s capital is fairly limited and I predict that there are plenty of groups ready to take up the slack — for the grant money.
It’s worth a reminder here, perhaps, that although “the church” is against marriage equality, not all churche denominations are. I very much appreciate the fact that my health-care insurance is paid for by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington because my not-yet-legal spouse works for them.
I admire the charity work this Catholic group has done. But if they’re gonna take their ball and go home because of a gay rights dispute, that’s the way it is. Hopefully other groups will fill the social work vacuum left by Catholic Charities.
If any church of any denomination dips it’s toes into political waters, and gay rights is a political issue, then they should lose there tax exempt status. That would send a message to churches everywhere, “tend to your flock, all of your flock.” Love, and caring, for humanity is secular.
They should all lose their tax exempt status yesterday, this only further proves their dumbassery.
Jeff, in saying the Catholic Church spent millions in Maine and California fighting gay rights, you allude to the issue Holte names: tax exemption. If a church engages in political campaigning and/or lobbying, it should indeed lose its tax-exempt status. It’s good the Episcopal Church has fairness in its benefits program. The United Church of Christ has run TV ads welcoming people of all sexual orientations, individuals and couples, which is encouraging.
Tom, back in the early ’90’s when the push to include religious groups more in providing/administering public-funded social services got under way, I predicted problems like this . Government-provided programs and services can and should be available to all, based on need. Obviously, public offiicials are in a better position to make that happen than church leaders.
Holte, I think love and caring for humanity is what it is, whether done by religious people motivated by their faith or done by the nonreligious motivated by their own humanity and better instincts.
Randal, I take it you’re referring specifically to Catholic Charities in D.C. As I said, if they lobby or carry out a political campaign against treating gays or any other segments of society fairly, they should lose their tax exempt status. But if all they do is say they can’t go along with that because of their beliefs, and ask that their contracts be terminated, I don’t think changing their tax status is called for. It would be seen as a spite job, and probably would be a spite job. That’s not good public policy either.
I long ago (40 years or so) decided the Catholic Church should have lost their tax exempt status when I found out they were one of the largest slumlords in the New Jersey inner city areas near NYC. If they can profit from rentals, they should pay taxes.
You are being entirely way too understanding of their position in my opinion. Although, I would agree that they have that right to pull out of the DC area. Even though it just reinforces my low opinion of the Catholic Church in general.
MrMacrum, the Catholic Church carries within it 2,000 years of tradition. In a land that values flexibility, innovation and rapid response to change, the church offers comfortable familiarity, stability and steadfastness to its beliefs. That’s a perfect setup for church doctrine and public policy being at odds on a fairly regular basis. I try look at both sides with some understanding of what makes them tick very differrently. It’s easy to cast parties to a dispute as being all right or wrong, all good or all bad. Real life is often less simplistic and clear cut.
DC has a hell of a lot of “have nots”, so for these so-called christian bastards to threaten to take away their charity services…well, I reckon ol’ jesus would be running their patoots out of the temple. Funny, I believe I remember reading somewhere in some book or other, something about some long-hair talking about taking care of those less fortunate, no questions asked.
Alas, Bee, 2,000 years of translations, interpretations and outright twisting around can do bad things to a simple message of compassion and generosity.