Wasn’t Archbishop Donald Wuerl going to eliminate the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C.’s adoption and homeless programs if the City Council approved of gay marriage in the nations’ capital? Turns out, they were bluffing!
Earlier this month, with the Council’s first 11-2 vote to approve marriage, we wondered aloud whether the Church would keep its promise.
Now we know: THE CHURCH LIES!!
The Church’s Catholic Charities unit will not be pulling out of D.C., as Wuerl claimed. In a letter subtitled “Archdiocese Remains Committed to Serving Poor,” the Archdiocese wrote yesterday:
Today the District of Columbia joined a handful of states where legislatures or courts have redefined marriage to include persons of the same sex. Since this legislation was first introduced in October, the Archdiocese of Washington opposed the redefinition of marriage based on the core teaching of the Catholic Church that the complementarity of man and woman is intrinsic to the definition of marriage. However, understanding the City Council was committed to legalizing same sex marriages, the archdiocese advocated for a bill that would balance the Council’s interest in redefining marriage with the need to protect religious freedom. Regrettably, the bill did not strike that balance.
The Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic Charities are deeply committed to serving those in need, regardless of race, creed, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. This commitment is integral to our Catholic faith and will remain unchanged into the future.
Religious organizations have long been eligible to provide social services in our nation’s capital and have not been excluded simply because of their religious character. This is because the choice of provider has focused on the ability to deliver services effectively and efficiently. We are committed to serving the needs of the poor and look forward to working in partnership with the District of Columbia consistent with the mission of the Catholic Church.
Taxpayer dollars are just too good to turn down, aren’t they?
The above letter arrives from the same Church spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, who told the Washington Post in November: “If the city requires [the Church to provide benefits to same-sex married couples], we can’t do it.”
Well, the original bill didn’t change, and there was no language inserted allowing institutions who receive taxpayer dollars to continue discriminating, and yet miraculously, the Church is still able to serve the needy. It’s a Christmas miracle!
JAW
from what I understand… The Catholic Church, as well as other religious groups, will now need to give full benefits to gay couples that may work for the church. The District will have to decide what to do if the groups refuse to give benefits to the gay partner of an employee. The district will be the ones denying funds to those groups, not the groups pulling out.
I am sure the courts will be dealing with this for years to come.
terrwill
Guess the $ are worth more than the “morals of the church”//////
Goodness knows what kind of mischif those wacky priests
would have gotten into it they had all kinds of spare time
not running those programs!! Think of how much more time
they would have had to spend with all the boys within the
parishes!! 😛
Cam
Gee, so if they lied about that then could it be that they also lied for all those years about not having hidden, protected, and covered for all those criminal priests all those years?! What a shock!
Robert, NYC
….”the archdiocese advocated for a bill that would balance the Council’s interest in redefining marriage with the need to protect religious freedom. Regrettably, the bill did not strike that balance.”
Another fucking lie. None of the states or countries where marriage equality is the law prohibit, compel or mandate religious cults to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. Nobody’s religion or freedom of religion is affected one bit. Since when does a religious cult get to call the shots on civil marriage that is totally different and has no religious component? Last time I checked, the roman cult pays no taxes, so it needs to STFU and stay out of politics or face the consequences, ditto for all the the others.
David
No surprise. “Church” is a synonym for “Lying.”
Adam
This means the church will continue doing a good thing, i.e. providing social services. This should be applauded.
We can all secretly have a good laugh that we called their bluff, but let’s not do it too loud, since they’re trying to do the right thing. And they’re trying even better/harder now that the State has whipped them into shape.
Robert, NYC
Just heard, evil bitch Maggy Gallagher and NOM are going to make sure the DC decision is overturned. They’ll be busy intimidating congressional leaders and will probably succeed as they did in Maine. What a cunt!
Drake
There are lots of possibilities here:
* They may wait until a gay person actually makes a claim for spousal benefits, then have a law suit.
* They may challenge in court some provisions of the city contract when it comes up for renewal.
*They may fund the (Maryland) pentacostalist Bishop Harry Jackson to sue the city to try to force a voter referendum.
*They may start some trouble about adoptions.
When you are not dealing with persons of good faith, it is impossible to predict their conduct.
schlukitz
Grrrrrrr…..
Touchstone
What really jerked my chain on this was that the HRC sent out an e-mail requesting members to BEG the Archdiocese not go through with their threat. In HRC’s pre-written email message, they basically reminded the Catholic Church to follow their own doctrines… WTF?
As a gay man, I don’t expect a gay organization supposedly fighting for my rights to go around asking the Catholic Church to be nice…
*****************
Here is the text of HRC’s e-mail:
I greatly respect the work that Catholic Charities does to help thousands of homeless and needy members of the Washington, D.C. community. It is on their behalf that I write to you today, with great concern for your stated plan to cut back those services in the event of the District’s passage of marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The services you provide, some of which are supported by the dollars of LGBT Catholics and Catholic allies of the LGBT community, serve an important role and should not be sacrificed to make a political point.
The Catholic doctrine of the inherent dignity of all human beings should guide you away from penalizing poor people in the District of Columbia. And it is this very same doctrine that compels many people of faith to support marriage equality as well.
I sincerely hope you will not continue to pit one group of God’s children against another.
I am confident that your charitable enterprises are motivated by charity and not politics, and in that spirit, I ask you: please do not cut Catholic Charities’ social services programs.
mark
F*CK these Bishops, gut ALL Catholic Faith based…..ANYTHING.
btw. the Vatican WITCH-HUNT against lesbian or feminist Nuns, gave me an idea. HIRE these women to run secular based organizations which care for the homeless.
add INSULT to INJURY!
Kurt
In fairness, the Archdiocese never said they were backing out of those services that they funded themselves, only that they would not be renewing their contracts with the DC government (about 2.3rds of their work). A lot is still to come and something may be worked out or the contracts will be given to te Baptists, wo are ready to take them over. I don’t think they lied. Some people misread.
Charlie Hoover
I think people are misreading this press statement
We are committed to serving the needs of the poor and look forward to working in partnership with the District of Columbia consistent with the mission of the Catholic Church.”
Notice how it is closed with a qualifier…
“consistent with the mission of the Catholic Church.”
Salty Mission
This makes perfect sense. The gays in the Catholic clergy want to take advantage of marriage benefits, too.
Stef
I just can’t, can’t, CAN’T understand this complaint. Like, since the Bible condones slavery, if I was anti-black because my religion tells me so, could I honestly claim religious freedom if I didn’t want to provide BENEFITS to a black couple?
Could you ever even IMAGINE trying to get something like that passed and accepted in this day and age?
“My religion is anti-non-whites and pro-slavery, therefore I refuse to acknowledge the legal status of two African Americans who are civilly married because I believe slaves can not be married, and I believe black people are slaves. Therefore, our church will not offer them shared benefits because their non-white civil marriage goes against my religion. And if you don’t add this bit into the legislation of the law, we’re going to cry anti-religion.”
I just can’t even fathom how one’s “beliefs” trump civil rights.
Hey government, taxes are against my religion. In this book I wrote, which my God dictated to me as I hung in my PJ’s watching Oprah reruns one day, it says taxes are the work of the devil, and paying them only pays the devil for his deeds. Forcing me to pay taxes is therefore infringing on my right to freedom of (from) religion, and therefore, I won’t do it.
These are the kind of bullshit excuses major religions are coming up with. Fuck it dude, if these people can get away with this shit because they’re pretend God said so, what else can they/have they gotten away with because some imaginary man with a beard in the sky says so?
Ridiculous. How anyone can subscribe to a brand of organized religion in this day and age of education, science and thought, is beyond me. I understand being spritual, and wondering if there is something more, or those little silent prayers when you’re dad is on an operating table, or your hope that there is more to death than being worm food – I get that. I do not get dictating your entire life around something that is based on a book as credible as Aesop’s fables. You can’t have sex before marriage because “God” says so. You can’t use birth control and you have to risk having babies every time you fuck your husband, even if you can’t afford 14 children, because “God” says so. You can’t support gay people because “God” says so. You can’t masturbate because “God” says so. Yeah? Well my God says treat others how you want to be treated, do what makes you happy as long as it doesn’t hurt you or others, and be kind and understanding toward those who are not the same as you. My God kicks your God’s ass, and he likes sex. So fuck you.
Daniel
Since most Roman Catholics are gay-friendly, the leaders of the Church should be elected by the people rather than appointed from the top down (a democracy rather than the current totalitarianism). That way better leaders would be elected to head the Church and that would make it a better institution. Roman Catholicism teaches that God also talks through the people as much as through any leaders so the people should take control of who leads the Church.
Larry Glinzman
Let’s see, the leaders wear frilly dresses with lots of jewelry, funny hats and patent leather shoes and their leader is a former Nazi Youth member. Sounds more like an organized crime family of transvestites than a religion.
Freddie
All Catholic churches should be seized by the government now.
It is a corrupt fetid cabal of corpse-eaters and child-rapists.
schlukitz
No. 15 · Stef
I’m with you, dude!
Vincent Pinson
“…working in partnership with the District of Columbia consistent with the mission of the Catholic Church.”
The Church did not change its position one bit. Thus, the very premise of this post is invalid.
AxelDC
They were so worried about DC passing gay marriage, and now Mexico City has gone gay!
Losing the largest Catholic city in the world is a much bigger blow than DC, which has a Catholic population smaller than the US average.