Maybe that’s overstating it — I’m in the business of overstating things — but when a church says it won’t continue offering much-needed social services because it disagrees with a public policy, is that fair? I mean, it is their money with which to do what they will, but…
From 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.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
And thanks, Sister Cynical, for the link.
14 responses so far ↓
Jay Croft // November 12, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
Studies have shown that a significant percentage of RC priests are gay.
So, will the diocese kick out its gay priests?
datingjesus // November 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm |
What studies are these? For real?
leftover // November 12, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
Threats now.
If they desire to discriminate unlawfully in deliverance of their “social services,” tell them to take a hike. After a full audit.
datingjesus // November 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
Full audit. I was thinking along those lines, myself. No one’s completely clear from government money, are they? Or some kind of government largesse….
Jay Croft // November 12, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-737077/Gay-priests-cited-in-abuse.html
There’s plenty more; just put Google to work.
In the above article, the author says that they are many gay priests leading “chaste, celibate lives” but that a few bad apples have shown up–which is to be expected in any large group.
datingjesus // November 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
Well, if they’re going to hold to the letter of their law…
Sherry // November 12, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
Jesus is weeping over this un-Christian response. I am appalled and disgusted by it. Denying care to those in need is about as far from Christian principles as you can get. And no, I won’t “bless their hearts”
Jac // November 12, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
Neither will I, Sherry.
datingjesus // November 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
Amen.
Jac // November 12, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
No, it’s not fair! In fact it’s borderline evil of the church to threaten to abandon the homeless, the hungry, and the sick like that. If they follow through on that threat, what have they accomplished? How will they answer to God and how will they explain to the congregation that they are no longer helping people in need? WWJD?
datingjesus // November 12, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
More under the bus-throwing, is what it looks like to me. Is the point to save lives? Or wade in their and enforce theology? (And no, that’s not necessarily the same thing as “saving souls.”)
Jac // November 12, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Ah…I wonder, do they do these things to save souls at all? I’ve never heard a Catholic mention that. They do seem interested in controling both non-Catholics as well as Catholics, but I don’t know why they want to do that.
Carol // November 12, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
After Maine, I’d say saving their theology. Gobs of money was given to defeat the gay marriage bill while parish churches were being closed left and right. So I guess the faithful can go hang as long as the “wrong” kind of love is prevented.
datingjesus // November 12, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
Excellent point. A shortage of priests, a shrinking number of churches, a massive campaign against same-sex marriage. Hmmm….