Catholic Charities and D.C.

It is my understanding that as a faith based organization, Catholic Charities operates as a tax free operation. So I don't understand why Catholic Charities thinks it should be able to garner political support for amending the same sex marriage bill. Yes, over the past decades this organization has helped D.C. overcome poverty hurdles and supplied support to many of its under-served. I fail to recognize, however, how this history connects in anyway to the decision of the D.C. council to legalize gay marriage. From their point of view, this decision should make the District an even more appropriate place for Catholic Charities to minister. Serving the poor and disabled does not have anything to do with giving a large minority within the district a few more of their basic rights.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Harlan Messinger on November 16, 2009 at 6:41pm: The position of the Catholic Charities is a great example of the ways in which people can express knee-jerk opposition to an issue when even the briefest glance at the bigger picture would show them, even in the context of their own perspective, that the basis for their objection is not as strong as they think it is.

Let the folks at Catholic Charities consider what would happen if another religion-based organization providing services under government contract were opposed to interracial marriage, and that organization were to a declare its refusal to pay spousal benefits to those employees whose spouses are of a race other than their own. What statement would Catholic Charities make in response to such an event? What response would they recommend that the city make?

And what does Catholic Charities do now in the case of married employees who have previously been divorced, and whose marriages the Catholic Church therefore does not deem legitimate? Are they already refraining from paying spousal benefits to those employees? If they do pay spousal benefits, then why do they feel they are able to do so, while not finding the same freedom to do so to same-sex spouses?

Surely the answer is that Catholic Charities can pay secularly mandated benefits with respect to secular employment under a secular contract based on a legally defined status, and resign themselves to the fact--the fact that already exists; no new ground is being broken, no new frontier is being crossed with the advent of same-sex marriage--that the city's use of the name for this status, "marriage", isn't consistent with the Church's use of the same term for doctrinal purposes.

I sent a note to this effect to the chancery at the Archdiocese of Washington a couple of days ago. I dared hope I'd receive a well considered response of some sort, but I guess I shouldn't draw any conclusion from the fact that I haven't received any acknowledgment, while today they go ahead and express the same blindered rationale on the radio that they came out with last week.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on November 16, 2009 at 7:58pm: They think people actually care what a bunch of old homophobic celibate men think. why they think they we should continue to allow them to discriminate is beyond me. Catholic Charities should hang their head in shame.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James L. McGee on November 16, 2009 at 8:01pm: I am not sure how I can comment on a WAMU commentary without some reference to who the speaker was and some synopsis of the content.
You have more faith in my ability to remember what I heard than I do.
Nevertheless, here is my reaction to whomever that represented Catholic Charities.

The Catholic Church's vision of its social mission is to torpedo health care for 40 million sick people lest one of them use tax payer money to pay for an abortion because that's what it believes.

I say, don't let the Catholic church use tax payer funds to support its social mission until its willing to support the social mission of the taxpayers..; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lotus13 on November 16, 2009 at 8:05pm: I just listened to the commentary and perhaps I missed something. I do not understand the connection behind the same-sex marriage bill and the Catholic Charities. I will not argue that CC has done DC an immense amount of good, but I fail to see the connection. It appears to me to be as ridiculous as saying: I play video games really well, so that's why Universal Healthcare does not make sense. Perhaps I missed something in the commentary, but I also did not understand how CC would not be able to assist individuals in need because of this bill. If I remember correctly, I believe that Massachusetts allows for same-sex couples to marry. In addition, unless something has changed recently, I feel fairly confident in asserting that Christian-based charity groups operate there. So, I do not see how allowing couples to obtain some basic legal rights, would cause the collapse of CC.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Faith Weiner on November 16, 2009 at 8:12pm: I listened carefully to the commentary and could not understand how the same sex marriage bill would affect Catholic Charities in the least. They already minister to people 'without question about sexual orientation.' Would the bill require their workers to perform same sex marriages? I doubt it. As for paying benefits to same sex partners (future spouses) of their workers (which I assume is their real objection), I agree with what another commentator said - there are lots of other partnership arrangements which don't square with Catholic dogma, and it shouldn't matter in a secular contract.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PLeifer on November 16, 2009 at 9:51pm: Since when does a secular organization get to dictate how the voting public wants to live their lives? Homeless, hungry, disabled and poor people all have the same needs and rights despite their race, religion and yes, sexual preference. Charity and social services have never and should never be held hostage by religious organizations. While I commend Catholic Charities for their work I question their mission if they believe they can not treat all people fairly. What's next, no shelter bed for a woman who has had an abortion? If Catholic Charities previously served the gay community without question will they suddenly now ask if a gay couple is legally married and refuse services? The whole argument and concept makes no sense and should not be given a platform.

This country was founded on separation of Church and State. If CC thinks the government should ignore the rights of the taxpayers in deference to a religious group that is only one of hundreds of religious organizations they think way too highly of themselves. They apparently do not know or understand the community they claim to want to help.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Harlan Messinger on November 16, 2009 at 10:18pm: Lotus13 and Faith Weiner, the District contracts with private organizations to provide services to those in need using city funds. Catholic Charities is one of those organizations. These organizations have employees who carry out their functions, and like employers in general they give them benefits, which include things like medical benefits with spouse coverage. Even though religious organizations can discriminate as they see fit in their internal affairs, when performing functions for the District with District funds, they are require to follow the District's non-discrimination laws regarding employment.

The Catholic Charities is claiming that it is against their principles to provide spouse benefits to people who they don't consider to be legitimate spouses, so they are saying that if they are going to be required to provide benefits even to same-sex spouses as a condition of continuing their city-funded work, they will have to decline to do this work in the future.

The fallacy is that regardless of what their principles are, they already provide benefits to people who they don't consider to be legitimate spouses (new spouses of previously divorced employees), and life goes on. It's certainly the Church's right not to endorse same-sex marriage, but there is no reason why they can't register their objection and, having done so, pay benefits to same-sex spouses without worrying that anyone will consider it to be an endorsement that they are doing so.

Lotus13 said:
I just listened to the commentary and perhaps I missed something. I do not understand the connection behind the same-sex marriage bill and the Catholic Charities. I will not argue that CC has done DC an immense amount of good, but I fail to see the connection. It appears to me to be as ridiculous as saying: I play video games really well, so that's why Universal Healthcare does not make sense. Perhaps I missed something in the commentary, but I also did not understand how CC would not be able to assist individuals in need because of this bill. If I remember correctly, I believe that Massachusetts allows for same-sex couples to marry. In addition, unless something has changed recently, I feel fairly confident in asserting that Christian-based charity groups operate there. So, I do not see how allowing couples to obtain some basic legal rights, would cause the collapse of CC.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lotus13 on November 16, 2009 at 10:31pm: Thank you Harlan for your reply and clarification. Somehow, this argument was sadly lost to me in the commentary. While I may still disagree with their reasoning, for the points you yourself elegantly articulated, at least I know understand their rational.

Harlan Messinger said:
Lotus13 and Faith Weiner, the District contracts with private organizations to provide services to those in need using city funds. Catholic Charities is one of those organizations. These organizations have employees who carry out their functions, and like employers in general they give them benefits, which include things like medical benefits with spouse coverage. Even though religious organizations can discriminate as they see fit in their internal affairs, when performing functions for the District with District funds, they are require to follow the District's non-discrimination laws regarding employment.

The Catholic Charities is claiming that it is against their principles to provide spouse benefits to people who they don't consider to be legitimate spouses, so they are saying that if they are going to be required to provide benefits even to same-sex spouses as a condition of continuing their city-funded work, they will have to decline to do this work in the future.

The fallacy is that regardless of what their principles are, they already provide benefits to people who they don't consider to be legitimate spouses (new spouses of previously divorced employees), and life goes on. It's certainly the Church's right not to endorse same-sex marriage, but there is no reason why they can't register their objection and, having done so, pay benefits to same-sex spouses without worrying that anyone will consider it to be an endorsement that they are doing so.

Lotus13 said:
I just listened to the commentary and perhaps I missed something. I do not understand the connection behind the same-sex marriage bill and the Catholic Charities. I will not argue that CC has done DC an immense amount of good, but I fail to see the connection. It appears to me to be as ridiculous as saying: I play video games really well, so that's why Universal Healthcare does not make sense. Perhaps I missed something in the commentary, but I also did not understand how CC would not be able to assist individuals in need because of this bill. If I remember correctly, I believe that Massachusetts allows for same-sex couples to marry. In addition, unless something has changed recently, I feel fairly confident in asserting that Christian-based charity groups operate there. So, I do not see how allowing couples to obtain some basic legal rights, would cause the collapse of CC.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bonnie Rice on November 17, 2009 at 3:22pm: Bottom line: Catholic Charities is bullying Washington, DC - say no to gay marriage or we will pull our operation out. This is shameful. This is not a knee jerk response. Since the far right has banned together against women and the gay community this is just another way to bully leaders. Think Stupak.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anne Stopper (WAMU 88.5) on November 18, 2009 at 9:31am: If you'd like to hear more on this topic, Catholic Charities' CEO, Ed Orzechowski, is going to be on WAMU 88.5's Kojo Nnamdi show today (Wed., 11/18) at 12 p.m. EST.

You can submit a question or comment on the Kojo Show's website.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nancy Polikoff on November 18, 2009 at 1:05pm: Catholic Charities is in violation of DC law right now because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status in the licensing of foster and adoptive parents. The marriage bill will not change anything in this regard. Up until now, the city and the gay community have looked the other way because there are other sources of licensing for lesbians and gay men. But now the Catholic Church is demanding approval for their discrimination, and that is intolerable. They think that by offering this as a "compromise" on the marriage bill they will garner public support (otherwise they would have asked years ago to be allowed to keep discriminating!).

Catholic Charities in Maine provides employee benefits to married heterosexuals and not to same-sex domestic partners, even though local law requires them not to discriminate. This is because, when it comes to these employee benefits, local law CANNOT force any private employer to do anything. There is a court case that makes this point clearly. So if the bill passes as is, and there is marriage equality in DC, Catholic Charities will not be required to give benefits to same-sex married couples. Claiming this sets up a false conflict, and they need to be called on this.

Here are two blog posts I have written about this:
http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/2009/11/catholic-c...
http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/2009/11/catholic-c...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Harlan Messinger on November 18, 2009 at 2:33pm: I believe you are mistaken. The District can set any legally permitted terms that it wants to in a contract, and if Catholic Charities enters into that contract, Catholic Charities is obliged by contract law to follow those terms. If Catholic Charities enters into a contract with terms they don't like and ignores those terms, and then the city has the same remedies available that it has in all cases where someone contracting with the city fails to conform to a contract. If the contract says generally that contracting organizations will abide by all city laws regarding non-discrimination, then they had better abide by all city laws regarding non-discrimination.

Nancy Polikoff said:
Catholic Charities in Maine provides employee benefits to married heterosexuals and not to same-sex domestic partners, even though local law requires them not to discriminate. This is because, when it comes to these employee benefits, local law CANNOT force any private employer to do anything. There is a court case that makes this point clearly. So if the bill passes as is, and there is marriage equality in DC, Catholic Charities will not be required to give benefits to same-sex married couples. Claiming this sets up a false conflict, and they need to be called on this.; ▶ Reply to This