D.C. Archdiocese Threatens To Cut Services Over Same-Sex Marriage Bill
Today, the D.C. Archdiocese just handed Christopher Hitchens a chapter in his next anti-God book. The archdiocese continues to press for a more watered down version of the D.C. Council's gay-marriage bill. It's gone so far as to threaten to pull its Catholic Charities services from the District, WaPo is reporting:
Hours after the Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary approved the bill Tuesday, the Catholic Church sent a letter to Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) calling for additional changes to the legislation. If church officials are not successful, the letter states, "services will be impacted."
"The exemption language contained in the committee [bill] is far too narrow, and must be expanded to include appropriate safeguards to protect religious freedom to preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other service providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the residents of the District of Columbia," wrote Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the Archdiocese.
Apparently, the church is afraid of lawsuits if it denies healthcare to legally married same-sex couples. With the District's unemployment rate well past 10 percent and budget cuts to homeless services still on the table, this is an astonishing threat.
Update: Councilmember Phil Mendelson says the archdiocese e-mailed him their letter late yesterday evening. "To me this is political," he says.
In the letter, the church mentions not facilitating adoptions to same-sex married couples. Mendelson says: "They've said it before and they've said it in other states. The language that we have is borrowed heavily from New Hampshire. We're not doing anything substantially different from what other states have done. I heard no testimony about adoptions coming to an end in the other states."
3:24 pm
I think the Archdiocese should be allowed to discriminate against gays only if DC allows discrimination against Catholics
4:00 pm
If I were the Archdiocese, I'd be passing around a list of all the social services provided in the District with a cost for it and a question of how the city will be affording to pay for those services on its own if the gay marriage law isn't amended.
Of course, if I'm a skuzzy well-connected friend of a politico, I'd be setting up a non-profit company to take city money for the social services the Archdiocese had been providing and get ready to make some big bucks with little oversight or need to show any results.
4:02 pm
Tell Pope Benedict XVII to kiss my communist ass. Take your superstitions & get the hell out of town.
We'll just raise taxes on the rich bloodsuckers & use that money instead of kowtowing to some clown in KKK robes in Rome. Fuck these superstitious cocksuckers.
4:38 pm
"If I were the Archdiocese, I'd be passing around a list of all the social services provided in the District with a cost for it and a question of how the city will be affording to pay for those services on its own if the gay marriage law isn't amended."
The Charities receive a vast majority of their funding from the taxpayers to begin with. They do very good and important work, but it is not a potent threat to suggest they are doing work the city cannot afford, when we're providing them with most of their funding in the first place. This dilemma, between the Charities' very good work, their public funding (incl. for the CEO's very substantial salary) and their troubling request re: the marriage equality legislation, was the topic of this enlightening exchange between their CEO and Councilman Catania:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_41M_KNlwk&feature=youtube_gdata
4:45 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_samaritan
"Samaritans were hated by the story's target audience, the Jews, to such a degree that the Lawyer did not mention them by name but as "The one who had mercy on him." The Samaritans in turn hated the Jews. The enmity was in essence religious: both groups accused each other of misinterpreting the Torah, of falsely considering themselves God's chosen people, and of conducting false worship, unacceptable to God... But as the story reached those who were unaware of the oppression of the Samaritans, this aspect of the parable became less and less discernible: fewer and fewer people ever heard of them in any context other than as a description. Today the story is often recast in a more modern setting where the people are ones in equivalent social groups known to not interact comfortably.
"Thus cast appropriately, the parable regains its message to modern listeners: namely, that an individual of a social group they disapprove of can exhibit moral behaviour that is superior to individuals of the groups they approve; it also means that not sharing the same faith is no excuse to behave poorly, as there is a universal moral law. Many Christians have used it as an example of Christianity's opposition to racial, ethnic and sectarian prejudice.
[...]
"That it was a priest and then a Levite who first passed by is significant beyond the irony of the situation: people who were expected to help, did not, while someone whom the victim (and Jesus' audience) despised, did. The priest may have had an "excuse" not to help since touching a dying or badly wounded person for someone so "holy", while not forbidden, would be, in our modern vernacular, distasteful due to all the necessary cleansing rituals prescribed by Mosaic Law. The priest therefore decided that being ritually clean and "priestly" was more important than saving someone else's life. Jesus' unspoken challenge to all seems to be: would we help only if it is convenient, or are we willing to go out of our way to show compassion to a stranger?"
Although, to be fair, I doubt the archdiocese cares overmuch about what this "Jesus" guy had to say.
4:51 pm
For shame, Archdiocese. How very Christ-like...
5:02 pm
I apologize for using "clit" & for the other word. This is why we need socialism - churches are unreliable. If you print a picture of a "prophet" or give health insurance to a gay person, a church is liable to launch an jihad or a crusade or a genocide or a inquisition or a fatwa or they might just get Puritan on your ass.
All religions are superstitions. Religions have done more net harm than good - all the "charities" are way, way out-weighed by the religious wars.
5:04 pm
I was wondering when CP wiould talk about this. CBS broke this story last week with a quote frome that cunt Susan Gibbs. Fuck them .LEAVE TOWN YOU assholes..Take away their tax excemptions (along with their brethren..space cadets scientoligists) I hate the catholic blood sucking church and their Nazi pope....Makes me wanna sucker punch a cardinal and run! WHOH! now that I got that off my chest..Did anyone see the item about the Morman church today???
11:32 am
It is not unreasonable to expect that services paid for with public money should respect the dignity and value of every citizen in the city.
I'm sorry if the Catholic Church has bias/prejudice against helping legally married gay folks, but if you're going to take public money, you need to follow the rules.
1:56 pm
well here we are The National Old Catholic church that has not tides to the Roman catholic church but a very Valid catholic church.We are willing to steep up to the plate when the Roman catholic church steeps down .we would be asking for the community to help us out by supporting us in helping out the cummmity as well we would need the help of the city in giving us some funding to help those who would need help.so let stand to gether and show the Roman Catholic church that there is another church that is realy about doing Gods works and about Gods word not just talk and no action
12:28 pm
The Catholic Church should not take public funding. Period. If services are decreased, so be it.