home

Catholic Charities Threatens To Not Take Gov't Money Over Gay Marriage

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 01:57:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Damned stupid imo:

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.

As Atrios says, "Good. Someone else who [cares] can run them with federal tax dollars."

Speaking for me only

< "Balloon Boy" Parents To Plead Guilty, Get Probation | NY Judge Clears Man After 18 Years, Cites Innocence >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Catholic Charities Threatens To Not Take Gov't Money Over Gay Marriage | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "Straight flight" (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    heh.

    let the Vatican fund them (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by coigue on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:16:09 PM EST


    They've got tons of money and (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    valuable paintings.

    Parent
    Vatican should travel-exhibit paintings to raise $ (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ellie on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:39:03 PM EST
    ... fill some bellies, heal the sick, help the downtrodden -- and get the hell out of politics.

    You know, ease suffering instead of causing it.

    That kind of gilded palatial display is a gross affront to orders of the church that take a vow of poverty to run shelters, kitchens and free clinics. Abortion and anti gay-bigotry is barely on the radar.

    Parent

    Missing the point...the (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oldpro on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    'gilded palatial displays' are intended to stun the poor and ignorant with the power and splendor of the church...and its hierarchy...sort of 'stand-ins for the gods' of more primitive peoples and times.

    Parent
    They're apparently (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    anti-gay tourism too.

    Parent
    It's sad (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    they are basically using the poor and homeless as a bargaining chip here.  "Lay off us with your liberal laws, or these people will have to go hungry!"

    People who run legitimate charities are doing God's work, literally in this case I suppose, but I had no idea God's union contract had so many loopholes.  Feed the hungry and clothe the naked, unless of course you disagree with the local government's policies on employee benefits, in which case there's no need to worry about the hungry and the naked any longer.

    I don't see it that way .. (none / 0) (#8)
    by nyrias on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    It is easy to find some other charity who accepts the rule and feed the hungry.

    They are NOT the only one who know how to make soup & sandwiches and hand them out.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    obviously they think they have some sort of leverage, or they wouldn't be making a threat in the first place.

    Parent
    True enough, on the making sandwitches (none / 0) (#30)
    by Radix on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    and soup point. The problem may not be in the will to help the homeless but the where to do it. The Catholics, along with other religious groups, probably have a substantial infrastructure to do this type of work already. Where do you get the store fronts and kitchens and so fourth for this type of enterprise? Even if the locations could be found could they be setup in time, considering winter is right around the corner.

    Parent
    Where has the 'classic' notion of Sanctuary gone? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ellie on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    That apparently forgotten concept is inherent in the meaning of small-c and big-C Catholicism:

    that the church turn away no one in need, be it for reasons of the body (hunger, deprivation, lack), for respite from persecution by the mob, and even prosecution until the party has advocacy and defenses.

    This political grandstanding is simply grotesque in both the material and moral / spiritual sense.

    The "house" (Ecclesia) is supposed to belong to the people.

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    I had a good conversation about this earlier with a conservative Catholic who's a good friend of mine.

    He said he respects the Church for sticking to its principles.  I said, but aren't two of their principles coming into conflict here?  Either you abandon your mission of helping out the less fortunate, or you condone sinful behavior by giving your employees domestic partnership benefits, but you have to choose one.

    My view is that I respect the Church's right to have theological positions on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, but that I'm not convinced God really wants them to make those the two overarching issues that trump everything else in church doctrine.  I think he saw my point but didn't really agree.  We agreed that someday before the Throne of God, or maybe in the other place, we'd find out who was right about what the Big Guy wants.

    Parent

    IMO you're more on target than your friend ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:42:04 PM EST
    The overriding principle should be protecting all comers to allow them privacy of counsel (confession, the freedom of conscience and penitance &c), and NOT to run the place like it's the ecclesiastical version of Studio 54.

    Really, this modern monster is way off base.

    Parent

    We may respect the right of the Roman Catholic (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:52:33 PM EST
    Church to have theological positions on abortion and homosexuality, but their theological positions have a long, selective and political reach to include those outside of their theological beliefs and teachings.  If they are to be applauded for "sticking to their principles" they might campaign not only for denial of federal funding for woman's choice but also, seek laws that give hefty jail terms not only to the doctor, but also the woman. Indeed, if the Catholic hierarchy had any sense of decency, in light of their dismal institutional and conspiratorial record on pedophilia and its cover-ups, they would remain silent on such issues for at least 100 years.

    Parent
    It's not turning people away; (none / 0) (#43)
    by jpe on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    it's just refusing city contracts that would lead to it having to hire based on merit.

    Parent
    It's turning on its own beliefs (none / 0) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    that theirs is an all forgiving God who embraces all of his children. It is taking vengeance on those who they have declared sinners, and it is literally saying that God does not actually love all of his children despite what they say from the pulpit. They deny food and shelter from those who the church has declared unworthy.

    It was exactly this kind of hypocrisy that made me hold my breath from the time I was old enough to reason until the day I left home and could stop attending.

     

    Parent

    I think your theology is wrong. (none / 0) (#48)
    by jpe on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 05:18:57 AM EST
    Yours - a UCC or UU-soundalike - is a pretty recent variant of xianity, which has historically condemned all sorts of people to hell.  

    It's a pretty mean religion.

    Parent

    Name a religion (none / 0) (#50)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 07:47:06 AM EST
    that isn't mean.

    As for you handing ownership of some religious beliefs to me, all I can say is baloney....I am affiliated with no organized religion.

    Parent

    Buddhaism? (none / 0) (#55)
    by nyrias on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 03:34:59 PM EST


    Parent
    The first admendment ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by nyrias on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    guarantees the Catholics to have the freedom to believe in ANY doctrines, even ones that are inconsistent and hypocritical.

    In fact, if they can recruit people with such inconsistent logic, more power to their "marketing department".

    Parent

    Now if we could only get... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    the church to give the state some money...give us heathens a break, our backs are killin' us carrying the tax burden of all these holy-roller free-loaders:)

    Great idea (none / 0) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    I'm with you! These churches seem to have a lot of money to throw around in the political arena. Maybe they should be taxed like everyone else since the money isn't being used for charity.

    Parent
    That... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    or hold them to some kind of standard as a charity to keep the tax exempt status...not to knock the church too bad, they do do a lot of charity work and low-level clergy do great work in their communities everyday...but I wonder how much of the collection plate actually makes it to the poor, and how much goes to settle lawsuits and to stock the vault at the Vatican.

    Parent
    All of them (none / 0) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    Political activism isn't confined to the Catholic church alone. All of them should be monitored. The Mormon church supposedly dropped a bundle in California to defeat gay marriage. How many needy people in California could have been helped with that money? All in an effort to keep tax paying citizens from having their basic civil rights?

    Parent
    And don't forget the UCC. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jpe on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    They've done quite a bit in support of liberal causes.  

    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    their various versions of the big guy really are on their side...how else can you explain such a sweetheart deal for the organized religions?

    Parent
    Nah .. (none / 0) (#24)
    by nyrias on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    I think "organized" is the key word. If you organize enough people and resource, you can get sweetheart deals too.

    Just witness various big industries.

    Parent

    Question: How come Catholic Hospitals (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    take money from insurance companies that cover abortions?

    Easy one Dan... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    they'll take money from anyone anywhere anytime...I mean there is no vetting when they send the plate around at mass either.

    Parent
    Heh. Darn right. (none / 0) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:48:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Why wouldn't they? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jpe on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    You're making an inapt comparison.  re: DC, the church is objecting to the state conditioning revenue on non-discriminatory practices.  By contrast, insurance companies that fund abortions elsewhere are not compelling church hospitals to do anything the church finds objectionable.

    Parent
    Please re-read the debate (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    over the Stupek amendment.  Catholic officials made it very clear they consider it objectionable to give money to insurance companies which cover abortion.

    Parent
    Maybe they need to remove the word (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    "Charities" from their organization. If they are receiving payment for a service, it is hard to claim that they are a charitable organization rather than a fee based service provider.

    IMO the taxpayers would be better served if the government allowed all churches the opportunity to pursue charitable acts per the basis of their professed faith, rather than being a profit center under the guise of being a charity.

    Are you sure it's a "profit center?" (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    My understanding is that the city funding is nowhere near enough to fully fund the charities, and the shortfall is paid by the church.

    Parent
    In this modern world, (none / 0) (#26)
    by jpe on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    a large portion of charities' income is in the form of contracted services (housing, health care, welfare services, etc)

    Parent
    Holy Black Mail, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    Batman!

    Neither side should have to blink (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    The Church has every right to decide how it wants to do it's charitable work, and the city has every right to dictate terms under which it gives charities money. It doesn't seem like the end of the world to me if the city has to look elsewhere for services.

    It is a free world .. (none / 0) (#1)
    by nyrias on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    they certainly can decide not to take govt money. I am sure there are other charities who would be more than happy to take their place.

    It's gov't funded... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    I'd prefer it was managed by people who don't bring their religious beliefs to work with them. People should not walk into a wall of prejudice when they need help with basic necessities for survival.


    Parent
    Then catholic charities .. (none / 0) (#6)
    by nyrias on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    shouldn't take govt money at all. Easier to just set up non-religious charity.

    And it is a free world. If the catholic church is not not using govt money, I do not see a reason to prevent them from helping people in exchange for a chance to advertise their beliefs.

    Parent

    Yes, which is exactly why I said (none / 0) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    Gov't funded should not be run by prejudicial religious groups. I said nothing at all about how the Catholics want to help those they feel are without sin.

    In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would prefer to get their food and shelter from a group that would guarantee them separation from people they don't approve of.

    Parent

    I suppose the real practical question .. (none / 0) (#22)
    by nyrias on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    is whether someone else can take the catholic church's place in this instance?

    On a side note, i disagree that people who are in need of food and shelter will be choosy. They probably will take whatever that is offered to them first. I also highly doubt that people with hungry stomach will be thinking much about issues like gays & discrimination.

    That is also WHY religion is so much into charity because they get access to people whose minds are vulnerable and will do much (almost anything) in exchange for basic necessities.

    Parent

    Because Benedict (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 03:26:43 PM EST
    is too busy watching "V"

    ET phone home, or phone Rome? For the Catholic Church it's the latter of the two. The Vatican now pushing to find signs of alien life, recently calling on experts to study the possibility of it and it's implication on the Catholic Church.

    Vatican astronomers say there could be other beings created by God, and that that belief does not contradict their faith.

    Local parishioners like Estes Folk agree. "I think it would be interesting to see what the Church comes up with."

    "God created the universe," said Parishioner John Herrick. "So, whether there are people here or on other planets, they are still creatures of God."

    Vatican astronomers say they have long been at the forefront of trying to bridge the gap between religion and science. It's scientist-clerics have produced research on the topic and even have a world class meteorite collection.  
    Yes, the Vatican's heavenly interests (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    include a temporal look at the stars with the help of the "Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope", a cooperative effort between the University of Arizona and the Vatican.

    Parent
    D.C. has lots of smart people (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    perfectly capable of putting together replacement services fast, I suspect -- if our faith-based government now really wants it to happen.

    Right On (none / 0) (#39)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    Send the money to the American Friends Service Committee, the Nobel laureates.  

    Great!! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:42:15 PM EST
    I am sure City could find other groups to use the money.  

    not for profits are broke (none / 0) (#46)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    Actually, not for profit organizations are going broke trying to do human service on what the government gives them.  Catholic Charities benefits to some extent from the deep pockets of the church, whereas "Joe's clinic" will only get federal money and will have much less of a ability to attract private donors.
    This may be a shrewd move by Catholic Charities to get out of the thankless, money-losing, government-regulated human services business and back into core businesses such as religion and donating money directly to human services causes of their choice.

    Parent
    Not-for-profits (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:38:41 AM EST
    should be "broke," actually.  They ought to have something in the bank, sure, but only to meet anticipated costs.  And those costs ought to be for serving their clients.

    I weary of seeing the salaries of the heads of some of these not-for-profits.  Some people are profiting a lot from them.  Most often, though, the ones that are funded almost entirely by us, the taxpayers.  At least those salaries can be found on public records -- if the agencies are abiding by the law.  But I know (from serving on boards, from knowing others who serve on boards) the salaries of some church-run (if partially publicly funded) services, and Jesus would weep . . . and then run them out of the temple.

    Parent

    CEO salaries (none / 0) (#53)
    by diogenes on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    If you want to pay your CEO a tenth of what an equally qualified person would get in private business, then you get what you pay for.  Not since the days of the nuns have obviously overqualified people worked for nothing in the human services sector.

    Parent
    Who said only 10% of what they get? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    Why such an extreme reaction?

    Are you familiar with salaries of heads of not-for-profits?  Or are you confusing them with corporate CEOs?  

    Parent

    The Catholic Church has lost so much credibility (none / 0) (#44)
    by robrecht on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:10:13 PM EST
    in the last 30-40 years.  Aside from their theological doctrines, they used to command so much respcet in their social justice initiatives and teachings.  The last couple of popes have encouraged a rebirth of conservativism in so many areas, one has to wonder if they will even survive in Western cultures.  But, on the other hand, an organization that has adapted and survived in so many cultures for 2,000 years will probably be around for some time to come.

    Lost in Western cultures (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    as you note, and especially in this country.  I've seen reports that it's booming in some other areas.  I wouldn't put it past the church, as another commenter notes, to be pulling back from a lot of investment in this country, anyway, and just using this opportunity to make a statement about its unhappiness with our country's separation of church and state.  Or at least the remnants of that policy.

    Parent
    I second that motion (none / 0) (#45)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:53:21 PM EST


    A slippery slope (none / 0) (#49)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 07:01:56 AM EST
    This situation only amplifies the problems of the government subsidized Faith Based Initiatives. The government and church should not operate in business together. Church doctrine and civil law are very often in conflict. By giving a church federal money and creating a community dependence, we're only fueling social division.

    We're also emboldening churches to take a more aggressive role in the political arena. There is definite money in government contracts. A lot of money. The bigger the contracts are the more influence the church will try to exert.

    The sad aspect of this is, (because it deals with gays); a lot of people are willing to give them the concession. After all over 30 states have decided that gays really have no civil rights anyway, so it's no big deal.

    But where do we draw the line?  Hospitals and medical personnel don't have to accept my living will. Drug store employees can refuse to sell contraceptives. What's next? The Hindu clerk at the grocery store refusing to ring up my beef roast.

    Catholic Charities Threatens To Not Take Gov't Money Over Gay Marriage | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment