The Catholic Church has added a new act to their long list of traditions and rituals. Punishing people who are need of social service to force their political agenda.
The Washington Post — The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
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.
When will the Catholic Church finally change their name to something more truly representative? Wouldn’t a name like: “The Catholic Gay Hating, Women Discriminating, and Abortion Obsessive Church” be more accurate? The public view of the Catholic Church looks more like a political lobby group than a church.
Regardless of where a Catholic or any Christian stands on this topic, you can’t act out this level of hypocrisy and expect anyone to take your church or the God you worship seriously.
Tags: Bible, Catholic, Gay, Hate, Homeless, Hypocrisy, Marriage, Pope, Threat, Tradition, Washington
November 13, 2009 at 4:16 am |
If your only means of influencing is to threaten such an act, I would say you need to look into something new. I hope that the D.C. Council doesn’t give in but am afraid they will.
November 13, 2009 at 9:59 am |
May I suggest the Intelligencesquared debate “Is Catholicism a force for good in the world?” With Hitchens, Stephen Fry, an African Bishop, and some lady from a Monty Python sketch:
November 13, 2009 at 10:28 am |
That wasn’t a debate. That was a humiliation for the church.
November 13, 2009 at 10:06 am |
Whoa! Stop! Back up. Just looked into this a bit. I’ll give you what I read and you tell me if you have other info.
The RCC is NOT saying, “If you pass this law, we’ll stop our social services as a protest.” Quite to the contrary. It’s the DC government that is saying, “If you (the RCC) don’t recognize same sex couples and provide them benefits, we will not allow you to provide social services in the DC area.”
Please take another look and tell me if you have information to show I’ve got it wrong. If I’ve got it right, I’d like to ask you to please rewrite or retract this article. If I’ve got it wrong, of course I’ll own up to it.
November 13, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
It’s both. The RCC is saying it is willing to forfeit their social services for political reasons. The DC isn’t asking the Catholic Church to be pro gay marriage, or requiring them to perform gay marriages in their churches. Only that they don’t discriminate against them within their social services. A bit of an ultimatum from both sides. But in the end, the Catholic Church is saying they would rather discriminate against gays and lesbians than feed the homeless.
So no you don’t have it wrong, but the ultimatum is coming from both sides. The Catholic Church is choosing politics over helping people in need.
November 13, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
I’ve argued this elsewhere, too. If the Catholic Church held charity and social services in higher regard than discriminating against gays, then this wouldn’t be an issue.
DC is putting its foot down and saying that it’s not okay to use city funds to discriminate on the grounds of sexual preference. Since the Catholic Church is only receiving public money at the discretion of the city to begin with, how that money is used really isn’t their call.
November 13, 2009 at 10:09 pm
So this is a non-story. Basically the Catholic church isn’t saying they don’t want homeless people fed, but that if the government is going to force them to accept homosexuality (outside the rectory) then they’re going to let the government use someone else as their middle-man. Big whoop!
November 23, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
The DC government is trying to dictate what the Church can and cannot practice as the result of what they believe and teach.
This is not ‘political reasons’. It is a foundational religious freedom issue.
November 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm
No, they’re dictating what the Church can and cannot do with municipal funds.
November 14, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
It appears that the city council, in connection with its new gay marriage law, is about to establish some new anti-discrimination rules that would apply to all businesses in the district. The measure is not directed at the church or anyone else specifically. The new rules will apply to Catholic Charities, the RCC’s social services corporation, because a charitable corporation is typically required to operate under the same rules as other corporations with regard to business practices. The rules will probably cover other church-sponsored employers as well, such as schools and hospitals, and maybe even the church itself in its capacity of ordinary employer (of secretaries, groundskeepers, housekeepers, etc.).
The news reports cite some reasonable exceptions for churches, as quoted above. The church wants more exceptions.
I suspect that the original announcement about suspending social services was intended not so much as a threat but as an illustration of the kind of “unintended consequences” which ought to make the council reconsider the legislation. But, of course, it sounded like a threat and, at the same time, it is not such a dire consequence since others can do the job if the RCC does not.
Even if exceptions were made under which Catholic Charities would consider that it could continue operating, in my view those exceptions should not apply to an organization which administers public money. In which case, presumably, they would still choose to give up the city contracts and the city would hire someone else.
November 13, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
I used to be Catholic. I’m glad I made it out.
November 15, 2009 at 5:44 am |
There is one further step to this, that I read, that seems to have been missed out on. The Church is actually contracted, that is they are PAID with tax payer money, to provide the homeless shelters, soup kitchens and adoption assistance services!
They are NOT doing it out of the kindness of their heart, they are doing it because they are paid to do so. The M.F’ers should be taxed!
It is chicken-shit that they should quit providing assistance to those in need over this kind of thing, it is even worse that they have to be paid to do it in the first place. The whole idea of giving them tax free status is to encourage them to a) stay the hell out of politics, which they don’t do, and b) to use the money they could have been paying in taxes to do “good works”.
Arseholes, the lot of them.
November 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
interesting how you defend your right to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, but trash others for deciding what THEY think is right or wrong.
There’s a word for that.
November 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm |
I think Jesus said something about judging people.
Oh well, it probably wasn’t as important as trying to nail someone down on a vague perception of inconsistency.
You’ll note that “deciding what’s right and wrong” isn’t the issue here. It’s that discriminating someone based on the consensual decisions they make with other human beings in the privacy of their home isn’t just wrong, it goes against the freedoms this country stands for.
Interesting how you defend the church’s right to hate a group to the point where they will allow people with nothing to do with the matter suffer, but trash people who are reinforcing the Biblical principles of loving your neighbor, forgiving those who trespass, not judging those who sin, and taking care of the poor.
You’ll find that’s a more fitting description of that word you’re thinking of.
November 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
Yes, Jesus said that you will be judged by the same standard you judge others.
Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
November 23, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I was being sarcastically vague. You did the exact same thing and I was mocking you for it.
Now, I’m not going to go into the intellectual ramifications of me picking up on it and you not getting it, but I think you can figure it out if you try.
November 23, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
This post has nothing to do with my decision of what is right or wrong. The judgement comes from their own book. And there is a word for the actions of the Catholic Church. It’s called hypocrisy.
November 24, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
Janus,
Your reference wasn’t vague, it was simply inappropriate.
The oft quoted scripture ‘judge not’ is misused when divorced from it’s context.
It’s clear that Jesus isn’t instructing his followers not to judge. Jesus knows human nature, and knows that we make judgements all the time. In fact, it would be impossible not to judge.
He’s sure that they will, so He says that the same measure will be used to judge them.
My statement, OTOH, wasn’t vague, and wasn’t intended to be.
November 24, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
The reference was solid. The entire passage is a lead in to the “look at the beam in your own eye” metaphor. Jesus says to not judge because you have no room to talk. Referencing the passage in regards to your comment is very prescient, you’ll find.
“There’s a word for that.” is a sarcastically vague comment, as is “I think Jesus said something about judging people.” Neither is an invitation for the other to say what it means. It’s said by a person knowing full well that the meaning will be picked up o. It’s a veiled barb.
Of course, this is all ignoring the meat of my comment in favor of scrutinizing the pithy garnish.
The Catholic Church’s actions in this case are beyond defense. If they want to throw a hissy fit because the city doesn’t want municipal funds going to a hate group, then they deserve to be called out on it.
December 9, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
Funny how you want to cut the passage short since the very next verse says: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
It is clear that Jesus fully expects his followers to make a moral judgement, discerning the dogs and pigs.
Jesus doesn’t say ‘not to judge’. He is saying you will be judged by the same standard you use to judge others.
He plainly says He expects them to remove the speck from their brother’s eye , after first examining and cleansing themselves of anything blameworthy.
The metaphor of the plank is used to note that they should ‘first see clearly, then judge righteously’.
March 18, 2010 at 2:29 pm |
actually your blog is one of those i will bother to revisit. most i saw today are full of useless informations and advertising. thank you for providing some real content to the world
June 18, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
I was reading where someone was recommending straw. The truth is we need to hold big oil accountable for clean up the mess they have created!
July 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
I like this site…excellent info. discovered it on google. will save it as a favorite.