“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.
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 accordance 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.”
explaining the Catholic Church’s stance on a proposed bill
legalizing same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.
posted November 23, 2009 at 8:47 am
Why do gays need more love than any other adult? Isnt it time, we stop promoting the sex habits of adults as a political right, when they already have that tight … and instead care for those who have no no right in our society..the voice of the unborn.
“Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion” Mother Theresa
Not as a matter of religion..but as a true moral concern for life itself!
posted November 23, 2009 at 9:27 am
Legislation is what is necessary for the government to continue switching positions on any given subject including but not limited to Church Laws and moral principles.Legislation has confounded the way our forefathers constucted the laws for governing this great nation.Thus, that is not so great a thing. Legislation is another necessary evil to control this diverse population we have.
Mans laws first, God’s laws second!
posted November 23, 2009 at 10:08 am
As I see it, the big gripe is that Catholic Charities would have to provide benefits to the spouses of gay employees. So what about these employees, do they work for Catholic Charities already? If so, why hasn’t the bishop fired them? Since this is a marriage issue, what about employees in irregular marriage situations such as those who have divorced and remarried?
Keep up the good work Archbishop Wuerl, you are bound to get that promotoion to cardinal soon.
posted November 23, 2009 at 11:01 am
The state has a civic mandate to provide government services to it’s citizens who are poor. In the effort to carry out this mandate, the state may enter into contracts with other institutions, both secular and religious, for the purpose of providing these government services at a cost and manner that is advantageous both to the state and to the recipients of these services. The state, however, is not obliged to fulfill it’s mandate by means of such contracts. Should the state choose to do so, and since these contracts involve the extension of public funds to private institutions, the state is well within it’s right to impose conditions on those institutions interested in entering into contracts with the state for the purpose of providing these services.
The Church has a gospel mandate to serve the poor. The Church may enter into contracts with other institutions, both secular and religious, for the purpose of better fulfilling this mandate. The Church, however, is not obliged to fulfill her mandate by means of such contractual relationships. Should she decide to do so, however, she is well within her rights to limit such contractual relationships to institutions that abide by policies the Church regards as consistent with her overall mission and, therefore, is well within her rights to refuse to continue doing so should any institutions impose new conditions on entering into such contracts that the Church finds untenable.
It’s unfortunate that the state has decided to impose conditions that it ought to have understood that the Church would find untenable. To the state’s credit, however, too many Catholic institutions in recent decades have been far too willing to compromise Church teachings in order to find some way of working things out with secular governments so the Catholic institution could continue receiving the public funds on which they came to rely. Given that, the DC Council had no reason to think that these new conditions would cause any problems. It isn’t necessarily the DC Council’s fault that some Catholic institutions, in this case the Archdiocese of Washington, have recently re-grown backbones. Nevertheless, it’s a happy development, and the Archdiocese should stick by her guns in hopes that her actions might initiate a new model and serve as an example for other Catholic institutions, as opposed to Georgetown’s willingness to compromise serving as an example for the Archdiocese.
The Archdiocese won’t discontinue her ministries to the poor. She’ll continue to perform those ministries and fulfill her gospel mandate, only without public funds and free of any conditions the state might impose, either now or in the future. Unless and until the state government decides to make it unlawful for any institution to perform such services without permission from the state. Let’s pray that day never comes.