Skip to main content

View Diary: The Catholic Church does something despicable (again) (120 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sigh. Again, No One is Stopping Their Good Works (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldGrandet, Shirl In Idaho, Ed G

    They are not leaving 68,000 people in need, they will continue to serve these people privately rather than through government contracts, which is the way it should be done anyway.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:39:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  If that's true... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...then I agree with that at least.  The less involvement between church and state, the better.

    •  Also...where are you getting that? (0+ / 0-)

      Can you show us where you're getting the information that the church plans to help these people privately?

      I see no mention of that in the article.

      •  They already do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed G

        The vast majority of the programs Catholic Charities carries on are done with no federal, state or local funding.

        For example, here in Virginia, Catholic Charities does a lot of work with the homeless, mental health counseling, services to the disabled, etc. etc.

        And indeed, there's nobody standing at the shelter door asking if you are gay and refusing admittance if you are. There's no one saying, sorry you're gay we can't get you a new wheelchair.

        This is the problem with the article - rather than presenting the facts, it  misleads you into thinking that Catholic Charities will simply close up shop completely, which is not the case.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 11:18:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it'd be nice if all these people... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AndyS In Colorado

          ...continue to be cared for, as you say.  But a rep of the church itself seems to say otherwise in the article:

          "All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

          Just because the church does other charity without state funding does not mean it will manage to care for all 68,000 of these people without state funding.

        •  In any event, they will not bestow their (0+ / 0-)

          "charity" onto LGBT people or hire LGBT people if they don't want to, yes, contract or not?  They will not treat everyone the same?

          Whether they close up shop or not, or have a contract or not, they're still a tax exempt institution that discriminates.

          I fail to see the difference here.  If you discriminate on such bases and are doing something beyond that which is purely religious, then you shouldn't have taxpayer exempt status, because by virtue of not being taxed, you are still indirectly being supported by taxpayer funds.

          If they're going to get involved in political questions at all, they should be taxed anyway.

          "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

          by AndyS In Colorado on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:58:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You're right that they won't stop helping, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forester, AndyS In Colorado

      so the "threatens to let homeless people die in the street" text in the OP's link is hyperbole.

      Still, the meat of the the WaPo story (as I see it) is this:

      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.

      Continuing to work with the DC authorities would not force the church to perform or recognize same-sex marriages, of course. As I read the article, the fears that the church is responding to here are that they would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. So the church just can't suck it up, hold its nose, and help people -- its mandate to "protect traditional marriage" makes it impossible for it to so much as work alongside people who don't see marriage in the same way. It's not as if they're checking for heterosexuality at the doors of the soup kitchen.

      It's as if I refused to work for a company that offered same-sex benefits. As a hetero person, that company policy doesn't affect me except in a broad, indirect sense that the company is paying a little more for benefits to a few extra spouses, and that's money that could be going to my bennies. It would be my right to quit, if I cared that much -- I shouldn't have to work for a company that doesn't fit my values -- but look at the strength of that bigotry!

      And with the fear of providing same-sex benefits to employees: is that so repulsive? The church can still say that those marriages are not proper Catholic marriages. It violates their sensibilities so much to hypothetically provide benefits to gay people?

      Part of this story is hyperbole, but part of it exposes the depth of the bigotry.

      (Sorry that my comment is a little late -- I bookmarked this thread for later to read over what absdoggy was saying. I don't mean to be that "last word" guy who steps in at the end of the conversation.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site