equality blooms with spring

[Irvine511]

I would have to say that the Catholic Church is definitely opposed to homosexuality, and the city requiring them to use their own funds (given by other professing Catholics) in a way that opposes their core beliefs is upsetting. I am not a Catholic, but I do agree that the city should not force anyone to go against core beliefs in order to do charity work.

In my opinion, the Catholic Church (or any other charity), should just stop partnering with the city.

what about divorce? the Catholic Church is against divorce, should it stop partnering with a city that grants married couples divorces?

or does that seem insane to you?

 

[UberBeaver]

"SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

II

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (bold is mine)"

God gave 10 Commandments. Jesus had 1 Command greater than all the others. How the fuck did we get to Section 2 of Chapter 2 Article 6 - #2357? Looks like someone's been over thinking this whole thing...."YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF" is pretty straightforward, you know? There is no "unless" after it.

 

[UberBeaver]

what about divorce? the Catholic Church is against divorce, should it stop partnering with a city that grants married couples divorces?

or does that seem insane to you?

Dude, come on. Section 9, Chapter 14, Article 92, #9834 through #9891 cover that. Doesn't anyone read anymore? Ugh.

 

[AEON]

what about divorce? the Catholic Church is against divorce, should it stop partnering with a city that grants married couples divorces?

or does that seem insane to you?

I may be mistaken, but I thought it was the city making the requirements of the Catholics, not the Catholics making requirements of the city:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians

 

[Irvine511]

I may be mistaken, but I though it was the city making the requirements of the Catholics, not the Catholics making requirements of the city:

you find that prohibiting an organization from discriminating against people -- not forcing them to do anything, as it states -- is too much to ask of an organization? for them to, you know, FOLLOW THE LAW?

and, no, it was the archdiocese of DC giving an ultimatum to the city, or we could also call it what it is: blackmail, to the tune of $8m.

 

[AEON]

you find that prohibiting an organization from discriminating against people -- not forcing them to do anything, as it states -- is too much to ask of an organization? for them to, you know, FOLLOW THE LAW?

and, no, it was the archdiocese of DC giving an ultimatum to the city, or we could also call it what it is: blackmail, to the tune of $8m.

I'm not sure I agree with you about which party is doing the "blackmailing"

...religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.

This seems to me the city is enforcing the Catholic charities to go against their beliefs in order to receive these funds (which is not for the Church, it seems, but for this charity work). It also seems it is the city that is placing "strings" on the charity matching funds.

This is why I made my point earlier, it is wise to keep the "Separation of Church and State" in order to prevent issues like this. The state usually hurts, and rarely helps a religious organization. The Catholic charities should just do the best they can without the city help.

 

[phillyfan26]

They're threatening to stop helping those in need because DC is going to give rights to homosexuals. That's what's happening here.

 

[phillyfan26]

The Catholic charities should just do the best they can without the city help.

They're threatening to end their charity efforts because DC is saying gays have rights. I think you're missing who the bad guy here is.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure I agree with you about which party is doing the "blackmailing"



This seems to me the city is enforcing the Catholic charities to go against their beliefs in order to receive these funds (which is not for the Church, it seems, but for this charity work). It also seems it is the city that is placing "strings" on the charity matching funds.

This is why I made my point earlier, it is wise to keep the "Separation of Church and State" in order to prevent issues like this. The state usually hurts, and rarely helps a religious organization. The Catholic charities should just do the best they can without the city help.

i think you're misunderstanding the situation.

washington DC gives the catholic church $8m for them to operate various charities. many of these are good and worthy charities like feeding DC's huge homeless population, etc. if you are receiving $8m in contracts from a government, guess what, you're already pretty secular.

DC is saying that if you want our money, you have follow the laws. they would require this of *any* organization, religious or not. we now have one organization saying that said law goes against their beliefs, that it is in their religious beliefs to discriminate against gay people, and so therefore they are going to give up their $8m in contracts and let homeless people go hungry this winter.

and the church can do this. but they can also say goodbye to taxpayer support. the church has to follow the laws if they wish to receive their $8m. they are not asked to write the laws, simply to obey them.

this is a very clear example where the church is infringing upon the state, not the other way around.

New England is heavily Catholic, especially Massachusetts. somehow, the church has reached a compromise up there.

 

[AEON]

i think you're misunderstanding the situation.

washington DC gives the catholic church $8m for them to operate various charities.

Catholic Church mistake #1

many of these are good and worthy charities like feeding DC's huge homeless population, etc. if you are receiving $8m in contracts from a government, guess what, you're already pretty secular.

Agreed, see mistake #1

we now have one organization saying that said law goes against their beliefs, that it is in their religious beliefs to discriminate against gay people

This is where I'm confused, is this a new development? Did the Church once have gay support groups in their halls and suddenly quit?

, and so therefore they are going to give up their $8m in contracts and let homeless people go hungry this winter.

Can't the city use ACORN or some other "charity" organization? Is the city really going to allow all those poor souls to go hungry with $8 million in their pocket?

...and the church can do this. but they can also say goodbye to taxpayer support.

...and they should.

this is a very clear example where the church is infringing upon the state, not the other way around.

Still disagree. I'm just at a loss why the city is 1) giving money to the Catholic Charity anyway, and 2) knowing the Catholic (and most Christian churchs) position on homosexuality would still give them money and then require them to hold gay support meetings in their churches.

 

[anitram]

Still disagree. I'm just at a loss why the city is 1) giving money to the Catholic Charity anyway, and 2) knowing the Catholic (and most Christian churchs) position on homosexuality would still give them and require them to hold gay support meetings in their churches.

Re: 1, because generally the Catholic Church is very socially active in various areas of poverty issues, and has really good, efficient and cheap systems in place for the delivery of services. Their infrastructure is by and large superior to municipal infrastructure and governments have historically saved tons of money by funding religious organizations such as the Church rather than electing to deliver the services themselves.

 

[Irvine511]

Catholic Church mistake #1

so you're against faith-based initiatives, something that both W Bush and Obama have supported? you think that the great work that the Catholic Church has done in the past with taxpayer money should be swept aside now that the taxpayers of DC have elected a council that wishes to extend marriage rights to gay people?

This is where I'm confused, is this a new development? Did the Church once have gay support groups in their halls and suddenly quit?

here's what the WaPo says:

Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Can't the city use ACORN or some other "charity" organization? Is the city really going to allow all those poor souls to go hungry with $8 million in their pocket?

the city will find other organizations. it is the Catholic Church that will be allowing people to go hungry.

Still disagree. I'm just at a loss why the city is 1) giving money to the Catholic Charity anyway, and 2) knowing the Catholic (and most Christian churchs) position on homosexuality would still give them money and then require them to hold gay support meetings in their churches.

churches receive money from the government to do charity work.

here, read this article, it will help:

D.C. Council girds for fight on gay marriage bill - washingtonpost.com

 

[AEON]

Re: 1, because generally the Catholic Church is very socially active in various areas of poverty issues, and has really good, efficient and cheap systems in place for the delivery of services. Their infrastructure is by and large superior to municipal infrastructure and governments have historically saved tons of money by funding religious organizations such as the Church rather than electing to deliver the services themselves.

So, rather than use the efficient, cost saving infrastructure of the Catholic charity - that seems to help a vast number of people - the city would rather 1) hold the funds, 2) give the funds to a secular, but inefficient organization, or 3) require the religious but efficient organization hold meetings that support behavior that is against their core beliefs before the funds are allocated..

 

[Irvine511]

So, rather than use the efficient, cost saving infrastructure of the Catholic charity - that seems to help a vast number of people - the city would rather 1) hold the funds, 2) give the funds to a secular, but inefficient organization, or 3) require the religious but efficient organization hold meetings that support behavior that is against their core beliefs before the funds are allocated..

you have it exactly backwards.

the DC government is saying that the Church must follow the laws. the Church is saying that they don't want to follow the laws, and damn the homeless people and immigrants if they are forced to follow the laws or lose their funding.

 

[AEON]

the city will find other organizations. it is the Catholic Church that will be allowing people to go hungry.

If the city finds another organization to feed the people, then the people won't go hungry.

And faith-based initiatives won't work if the governments add strings to the money - as is the case here.

I think it is probably best for religious charity work to be done outside the scope of government. If a city wants to contribute money without any clauses - great. If they don't want to give money because one church charity is too old fashioned - great.

 

[AEON]

you have it exactly backwards.

the DC government is saying that the Church must follow the laws.

Just so we are on the same page - what laws are the Catholic Church breaking?

 

[Irvine511]

And faith-based initiatives won't work if the governments add strings to the money - as is the case here.

strings like following the laws?

again, AEON, what if divorce were the issue?

 

[Irvine511]

Just so we are on the same page - what laws are the Catholic Church breaking?

please read the article, AEON. then we can have some common ground to discuss.

 

[AEON]

please read the article, AEON. then we can have some common ground to discuss.

I have, and I still disagree with you, and so does the Catholic Church (this means that your opinion on which party is giving the ultimatum is not the "slam dunk" you are portraying)

From the article...

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, countered that the city is "the one giving the ultimatum."

Also from the article...

placing adoptive children with gay couples would violate Church tenets.

Do you really think it is fair to force Catholics to place children with gay couples in order to perform charitable work with those funds?

 

[Irvine511]

I have, and I still disagree with you, and so does the Catholic Church (this means that your opinion on which party is giving the ultimatum is not the "slam dunk" you are portraying)

what's more evil: possibly providing benefits to same-sex partners, or denying services to homeless people?

and Catholic charities often have to dispense birth control, and they cannot *not* employ someone because they happen to be divorce. the Catholic stances on birth control and divorce are as clearly articulated as their stance on gay people.

it seems to me that the church is trying to influence legislation as DC looks fairly set to pass marriage equality in the coming months. they're trying to throw their weight around and set the stage for a freedom of religion vs. gay equality argument.

Do you really think it is fair to force Catholics to place children with gay couples in order to perform charitable work with those funds?

if they wish to receive taxpayer money, yes.

and you misunderstand. there isn't a quota of gay couples that the church will have to allow to adopt children. it's that the church cannot refuse to place a child with a couple if they happen to be gay.

 

[AEON]

More quotes from the subject:

"We're not threatening to withdraw services," said Susan Gibbs, archdiocese spokeswoman. "We're not going to be allowed to provide services. We need to be certified, and to get certified you need to say you followed D.C. law." ...

...

It "appears to leave religious institutions susceptible" to lawsuits and the loss of government funding for a church's refusal to provide benefits for the spouse of a gay employee, to facilitate an adoption or foster care by a same-sex couple, and to make church halls available to gay couples for non-wedding-related events, Archdiocese Chancellor Jane Belford wrote to Councilman Phil Mendelson, judiciary committee chairman.

The Catholic Church versus the D.C. Council | Washington Examiner

 

[AEON]

and Catholic charities often have to dispense birth control, and they cannot *not* employ someone because they happen to be divorce. the Catholic stances on birth control and divorce are as clearly articulated as their stance on gay people.

If this is true, then yes, it is a double standard

if they wish to receive taxpayer money, yes.

Ouch. Yet another reason people should just give directly to charity instead of giving to a city to give to charity.

and you misunderstand. there isn't a quota of gay couples that the church will have to allow to adopt children. it's that the church cannot refuse to place a child with a couple if they happen to be gay.

Glad to know there wouldn't be a quota

 

[BVS]

 

[Irvine511]

More quotes from the subject:



The Catholic Church versus the D.C. Council | Washington Examiner

i think you mean quotes from the church.

 

[AEON]

i think you mean quotes from the church.

Yes, I thought it was fair to post their comments as well. I also thought it was obvious they were from the church by the titles of the ones quoted.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, I thought it was fair to post their comments as well. I also thought it was obvious they were from the church by the titles of the ones quoted.

yes, and as you've stated, in regards to the church's position on birth control and divorce, it does seem like the church is making an exception here in order to continue discriminating against gay people.

does this not belie any claims to theological consistency or religious freedom on the part of the church and expose their more political agenda?

and doesn't this also have larger implications? that the concern isn't about religious freedom, it's about continuing to scapegoat a minority?

 

[BVS]

There is no consistency with the church in general on this subject. Like those examples of birth control and divorce with the Catholic church, you'll find similar contradictions in the Mormon and protestant churches as well.

 

[AEON]

yes, and as you've stated, in regards to the church's position on birth control and divorce, it does seem like the church is making an exception here in order to continue discriminating against gay people.

I don't think the Catholic Church considers their stance discriminatory. It seems they feel compelled by the city to promote and endorse homosexuality because of this new law that requires them to earn this "certificate" stating they will, among other things, give children to gay couples and allow gay couples to rent out the Church property for non-wedding events.

I can't find an example of the Catholic Church passing out condoms - please elaborate.

And as far as I can tell, the Church does not currently need to achieve a certificate that demands that they MUST give children to divorced couples and MUST allow divorced couples to rent out the Church property. The Church should be allowed to determine what they consider to be a safe, morally sound place for these children - and should be allowed to determine which group rents out their property.

does this not belie any claims to theological consistency or religious freedom on the part of the church and expose their more political agenda?

I simply believe in this case, the Church does not want the city to determine what homes they place children and what groups can rent their property. Additionally, in their view, giving "spousal" benefits to a homosexual couple is the same as giving benefits to a shacked up couple. The Church only recognize a spouse as a product of a marriage, and marriage can only happen between one man and one woman.

and doesn't this also have larger implications? that the concern isn't about religious freedom, it's about continuing to scapegoat a minority?

Scapegoat for what?

However, after all this being said - it is still a great example of why churches shouldn't accept taxpayer money. If there was no taxpayer money involved, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[martha]

I have a wonderful great-grandfather that risked his life to save black people from being hanged on lamposts in East Louis by hiding them in his truck, yet dropped the N-bomb like nobody's business and a grandfather that fought to keep Jews from being gassed yet didn't believe in mixed marriages.

While some of their views may seem old fashioned by today's standards, that doesn't mean they weren't honorable men, cherishing husbands, and loving parents. Abraham Lincoln, as much as we love him, loved to tell "darkie" jokes. Does that totally negate his place in history? Do we speak ill of him?

Many of us realize that our views today may be considered archaic tomorrow. But we also realize that this is not a reason to either accept or reject an idea - as history is more cyclical than linear (with the exception of technology). As immoral as our society may be appear - there have been worse periods in history - there is always a correction when things get too bad. As corrupt as our government seems today - there have been worse and there is always a correction when things get too bad.

Many of us think we are "holding the line" - waiting for the correction or preventing the need for one. I hope that my grandkids see me as a loving, honorable man that followed his conscience, no matter which way the prevailing wind was blowing. And who knows, maybe your grandchildren will think you were crazy to try and redefine the obvious...

This is very articulate and interesting, and even true post. But this is the telling point:

I hope that my grandkids see me as a loving, honorable man that followed his conscience, no matter which way the prevailing wind was blowing.

I have no doubt that you are an honorable man. No doubt whatsoever.

But honorable men can be wrong, fearful, and intolerant. And "holding the line" when it comes to denying people Constitutional protection when they've committed no crime is on the wrong side of both history and honor.

 

[martha]

it is still a great example of why churches shouldn't accept taxpayer money.

We agree. If you're going to accept the taxes paid by gays and lesbians, then you can't deny them access or rights.