A Debate About Catholic Moral Conscience And Gay Marriage In DC.

Archbishop Donald Wuerl gets prepared to sock it too those DC city commissioners--and it's no laughing matter.

Here's an op ed debate from the Washington Post concerning the Archdiocese's threat to with hold services from Catholic Charities over DC's pending gay marriage law. The first piece, by Archbishop Wuerl, lays out the Church's position. The second piece, by Mark Levine, rebuts Archbishop Wuerl.

D.C.'s same-sex marriage bill: Finding the balance
By Donald W. Wuerl Washington Post,

One year ago, I stood with city leaders on a hill in Northeast as we broke ground for affordable housing in the District. When the St. Martin’s Apartments are completed, nearly 200 low-income families and individuals will get a fresh start on life in a wonderful example of the type of effective public-private partnerships the residents of our nation’s capital need.

St. Martin’s is being developed by Catholic Charities, on land owned by the Catholic Church and with funding sources that include the District of Columbia.

Catholic Charities and the Archdiocese of Washington are committed to continuing to serve the people of the District as we have for many decades. That includes partnerships such as St. Martin’s. Unfortunately, the D.C. Council is considering legislation that could end these kinds of partnerships.

It doesn’t need to be that way. While we do not agree with the council on redefining marriage, we recognize that it is firmly committed to opening marriage to homosexual couples. We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests — those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs. The archdiocese is not alone in this request. Other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and nationally recognized legal scholars all called for stronger protections for religious freedom in their testimony on the bill. (This only applies to some deeply held religious beliefs.)

For the archdiocese and Catholic Charities, two core tenets of our faith are at the heart of our concerns: our understanding of the nature of marriage and our commitment to expressing Christ’s love through service to others. Under the legislative language before the D.C. Council, the archdiocese would be forced to choose between these two principles. The archdiocese has long made clear that all people have equal dignity, regardless of sexual orientation. But marriage is reserved for husband and wife because of its essential connection with the creation of children. (Jesus put service to others above marital adultery. He had no such conflicts.)

The proposed legislation offers little protection for religious beliefs, including no protections for individuals, as is required under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under the bill, religious organizations would be exempt from participating in ceremonies or from teaching about same-sex marriage in religion classes and retreats in accord with their faith beliefs, but they would be required to recognize and promote same-sex marriage everywhere else, including in employment policies, and adoption and foster-care policies, against their beliefs. (Again, this only applies to one Catholic teaching on marriage.)

So what does this mean?

The archdiocese and Catholic Charities are committed to continuing to provide services in the District. Despite the headlines, there has been no threat or ultimatum to end services, just a simple recognition that the new requirements by the city for religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriages in their policies could restrict our ability to provide the same level of services as we do now. This is so because the District requires Catholic Charities to certify its compliance with city laws when applying for contracts and grants. This includes contracts for homeless services, mental health services, foster care and more. Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses. (Only with the gay issue has the Church felt compelled to take this 'simple recognition'.

Each year, 68,000 people in the District rely on Catholic Charities for shelter, nutrition, medical and legal care, job training, immigration assistance, and more. This assistance is offered to whoever needs it, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexual orientation. Many of the programs are offered in partnership with the city, which turns to Catholic Charities and other ministries when it cannot provide social services on its own. Catholic Charities has a proven track record of high-quality service, supported through caring, qualified staff, thousands of dedicated volunteers and millions of dollars in financial support from parishioners all over the region. This legislation won’t end Catholic Charities’ services, but it would reduce unnecessarily the resources available for outreach.

We recognize that the council is likely to legalize same-sex marriage. It is the hope of the archdiocese and Catholic Charities that council members will work with us to find a way to better balance interests so religious organizations that have served this city well for many decades may continue to provide services without compromising the tenets of their faith. (Total hypocrisy. See below.)

***********************************************

A publicly funded charity should serve the public
By Mark Levine Washington Post

The Catholic Church’s complaint rings hollow. No charity should take millions of dollars from taxpayers and then treat as second-class citizens the very taxpayers who fund it. Gay men and lesbians pay taxes, too.

Catholic Charities argues it should not provide benefits to the secular married spouses of its employees who are married in violation of Catholic doctrine. But it has done so for decades without complaint. Because federal law requires nondiscrimination with taxpayer funds on the basis of religion, Catholic Charities already provides benefits to Jewish, Muslim and atheist spouses, as well as those Roman Catholics who have divorced and remarried in severe violation of Catholic doctrine. Are the marriages of gay people somehow less “Catholic” than those of thrice-remarried ex-Catholic atheists? Or a married ex-Catholic priest? Is the Catholic Church “promoting” these un-Catholic marriages when its publicly funded charity provides spousal benefits to all its legally married employees? I think not. Otherwise, why does it do it?

Just as federal law protects taxpayers against religious discrimination with federal funds, D.C. law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with District funds. If Catholic Charities is refusing to allow gay and lesbian citizens to participate in its publicly funded adoption programs (as the Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl seems to be suggesting), then it is already in violation of District law. That’s neither “equal dignity” nor “equality under the law.” In fact, why promote adoption at all if, as the archbishop suggests, the only purpose of marriage is the “essential connection with the creation of children”? Why then does the Catholic Church currently marry and promote adoption to infertile heterosexual couples?

A simple compromise would protect the archdiocese from being “forced to choose” between serving the public and upholding the tenets of its faith. Catholic Charities could allow each of its employees to designate one individual (spouse or non-spouse) whom the employee chooses to receive benefits and therefore not discriminate on the basis of marital status, sex or sexual orientation. Such a policy would make clear that the church is not sanctioning or approving of anyone’s marriage. If the church truly cared more about sheltering the homeless or feeding the hungry than punishing gay people, it could easily do this, with less harm to its religious principles than its current policy of providing benefits to non-Catholic spouses. (It would certainly be less hypocritical.)

Or it could get off the public dole. What it cannot do is take public funds and then refuse to serve the public. No taxpayer should be asked to finance his or her own discrimination.
Would the church support taxes going to a charity that refused to provide certain services to Catholics and discriminated against its Catholic employees?

The writer is counsel for the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club.

**************************************************

I keep promoting Archbishop Wuerl to Cardinal undoubtedly because I have firmly come to the conclusion that promotion in the Church is now tagged to officially and loudly bashing gays and banning abortion. The pronouncements from our bishops, at least for me, seem more like cover letters for promotions than pastoral concern. The position of the Archdiocese of DC is purely hypocritical as Mark Stein points out. It's so hypocritical I really don't see how anyone can accept it unless they truly do believe gay marriage is somehow more vile than heterosexual serial monogamy. The authentic teachings of the Church do not allow one to come to that conclusion, or they shouldn't. So why draw such a heavy line in the sand with regards to gay marriage as opposed to divorce and remarriage? It's certainly neither reasonable, nor logical, which seems to make it pathological.

Mark Levine's suggestion for the Archdiocese about designating any person a beneficiary is used by many corporations and some states to comply with anti discrimination laws. For a lot of people it's a great choice to have, especially if they are the primary care takers for another family member who is not their spouse or child. Any solution that allows for more choice is a good solution. This would be a good solution and it is entirely in the hands of the Archdiocese. It solves all the hypocrisy. If Wuerl should choose not to use this kind of solution then this is not about spiritual principles and a desire to serve the poor, it is about forcing a discriminatory moral stance on the American tax payer. It is about legislating Catholic sexual morality in secular law.

That seems to be Benedict's big issue, and apparently this is how one gets promotion with in the Church. Benedict seems to have a hang up or two in this sexual morality area. Catholics no longer hear much about Jesus the human. Almost everything this papacy is doing is moving Catholicism in the direction of an understanding of Jesus as a divine asexual. In denying Jesus's humanity a religious believer can also allow themselves to deny their own humanity and better yet, someone else's humanity. Denial is not a healthy way to deal with one's human tendencies. Archbishop Wuerl may turn out to be the cardinal example of this phenomenon.