The D.C. city council is weeks away from possibly passing a law that would legalize gay marriage in the city. Though controversial with some religious groups in the city, council sources and gay rights advocates say the law is destined for passage in the nation's capital, and supporters here expect to see the first legally recognized same-sex weddings in D.C. by spring. But today, the Washington-area Catholic Archdiocese told the city that legalizing gay marriage will cost D.C. the social services and charity work the church offers to help the city's homeless and other low-income populations.
Some are calling the threat the strongest stand against same-sex marriage taken by the Catholic church anywhere in the country.
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."If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
The proposed D.C. law, expected to go before the council for a vote in the first week of December, would not require churches to perform same-sex weddings. But it would place churches and religious institutions under the auspices of the city's existing equality laws, which forbids employer discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
According to the Post, the charity arm of the D.C. archdiocese serves around 68,000 people in the city with services ranging from homeless shelters to health clinics to adoption services. The church spends around $10 million a year on D.C. charity work, and provides a third of the city's homeless shelter beds.
All that could end if D.C. passes the gay marriage law, the church says.
From the Post:
The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.
So far, the threat has had little effect on the council's resolve to legalize gay marriage. The city already recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and the law is seen by most on the council as an extension of the city's existing welcoming stance to same-sex couples.
More from today's Post:
The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands."They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.
Late Update: D.C. Clergy United For Marriage Equality, a group of pro-gay marriage religious leaders in the District, released a statement condemning the archdiocese for its threats today. From the statement:
"The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads: they must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity¹s sake, or if imposing their will on the D.C. City Council and the citizens of the District is their primary interest."
Later Update: More D.C. church groups have been sending us their condemnation of the Catholic position on the city's proposed same-sex marriage law. Bishop John Bryson Chane, head of the District's Episcopal church, emphasized that the charity arm of his church will continue to provide relief to D.C.'s less fortunate.
"Episcopalians understand that none of us has the right to violate the human rights of another individual," he said. "That's the law of the District of Columbia. More important, it's at the core of the Gospel."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

freaktown
November 12, 2009 2:46 PM
i think the church needs to ask: what would jesus do?
i think it's clear that he'd turn his back on those in need just so he could make a petty political point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 12, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to freaktown
Hear! Hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 12, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to oleeb
Pretty sand when it's the Church that's taking the Low Road. Oh well, screw 'em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Laustinspace
November 12, 2009 7:18 PM in reply to matyra
This hypocritical ultimatum is a bluff by the bishop of the diocese. He wouldn't/couldn't stop the laity from providing services even if he wanted to. Washington DC (and THOUSANDS of Catholics in the city who know better) should call his stupid bluff and leave some real egg on the guy's face.
I'm a social justice-oriented Catholic and I'm confident that this bishop is bluffing or he's totally deranged. Either way, it's an empty, stupid threat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 12, 2009 8:06 PM in reply to Laustinspace
I hope you are right. Just noticed my comment had a typo: "Pretty sad" is what I meant. Of course, "pretty sand" isn't bad in the "build your house on a rock" parable-wise sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
November 13, 2009 11:20 AM in reply to matyra
Yeah, especially when that rock denied knowing his master 3 times ...
Poor guy didn't have sarcasm tags to make his meaning clear, and now we've got a Pope that runs around in bright red slippers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Laustinspace
November 12, 2009 9:21 PM in reply to Laustinspace
This just in: Catholic Relief Services to Leave India For Refusing to Disavow Hinduism. Spokeswoman for Mother Theresa's Order, Missionaries of Charity, says, "It's about damn time we got the hell out of there."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mimi katz
November 12, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to freaktown
So much for Christian Charity, for doing unto the least among us for the Lord's sake, for turning the other cheek and just about everything else Jesus is said to have preached.
The Catholic Church is about maintinaing the power of a bunch of (at least nominally) celbate old men not about spreading the gospel of Jesus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 12, 2009 7:55 PM in reply to Mimi katz
Actually, this is what the Catholic Church is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eztempo
November 12, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to freaktown
God, like bigotry, works in mysterious ways, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
November 12, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to freaktown
Jesus would ask for a tax-exempt status then lobby Congress for earmarks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drubs
November 13, 2009 1:38 AM in reply to freaktown
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/The-Catholic-Church-versus-the-D_C_-Council-8521386-69905727.html
D.C. Catholic leaders say forcing the archdiocese to provide adoption services for gay couples, health benefits for gay workers or space for gay events puts at risk services the church gives thousands of poor residents.
"We're not threatening to withdraw services," said Susan Gibbs, archdiocese spokeswoman. "We're not going to be allowed to provide services. We need to be certified, and to get certified you need to say you followed D.C. law."
The same-sex marriage legislation, as amended and adopted by the D.C. Council's judiciary committee, poses far-reaching consequences, the archdiocese claims.
It would put homelessness services, crisis assistance for teenagers, and adoption and foster care programs all at risk, because the Catholic Church will not abide by a D.C. law requiring it to promote gay marriages, church officials said. The archdiocese receives roughly $18 million a year to provide those services and more to District residents.
It "appears to leave religious institutions susceptible" to lawsuits and the loss of government funding for a church's refusal to provide benefits for the spouse of a gay employee, to facilitate an adoption or foster care by a same-sex couple, and to make church halls available to gay couples for non-wedding-related events, Archdiocese Chancellor Jane Belford wrote to Councilman Phil Mendelson, judiciary committee chairman.
Catholic Charities served 68,000 D.C. residents in 2008, Gibbs said, and claims to be "the largest provider of beds for the homeless in the District," serving more than 1,400 people every night.
Its programs include health and dental care for the poor, vocational training, child care and after-school care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, crisis assistance, and foster care support and adoption counseling.
D.C. Clergy United for Marriage responded Thursday that the Catholic Church was running a "cynical political ploy" by threatening to "turn their backs on thousands of D.C. Catholics" and other residents. Mendelson called it, simply, "rhetoric."
"I don't want to be cavalier in dismissing them," he said. "On that other hand, I don't think the council will legislate by threats." He added, "I certainly don't want to drive anybody out of business. But equality is equality." The original legislation drafted by at-large Councilman David Catania exempted all religious societies from the "promotion" of any gay marriage-related activities that ran contrary to their beliefs, provided those same services were not available to the general public. The amended bill, which is expected to garner final council approval before Christmas, provides a blanket exemption for churches from any activity directly related to a gay wedding ceremony, as well as from the promotion of same-sex marriage through "religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats." The church is not required to teach gay marriage in a classroom, for example, but it must provide adoption services for a gay married couple. "We can't," Gibbs said. "We just can't."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
November 12, 2009 2:52 PM
I'm loath to criticize any church, but this is beyond the pale. Blackmail is disgustingly hypocritical for any moral institution, but for the Roman Catholic Church to do this is a stunning abandonment of Christ's mission, and beggars whatever moral standing the RCC has left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 12, 2009 2:54 PM
I, for one, really hope it does go down that way.
I quit the Church as a teenager, and I've been waiting ever since for the rest of society to figure out what nasty little power freaks they are (anyone who would intimidate you with the fires of Hell, for the crime of questioning a bunch of sadistic but ultimately human beings, needs a severe check to their authority. These bastards, however, get away with murder. Or, at least, pedophilia).
Having said that, I don't believe whoever made this un-Christlike threat did so with the coordination of the Vatican. This smells to me like some mid-level Catholic schmuck, using his authoritarian Catholic ego to make Church "policy", on the fly. Don't be surprised if this never comes down, or if someone on a higher level steps-in and walks it all back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
November 12, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Whoever made this decision is sucking up to Rome. This pope is bent on rolling back the RCC to the 19th century, complete with patrimony, narcissism, and strong political influence. This was no mistake. It conforms to the "new" conservatism that comes with "sweeping out the trash."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
November 12, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Probably right, but I don't doubt that Ratty would have approved of the gesture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
M. Digby IV
November 13, 2009 1:30 AM in reply to Barry Champlain
I think the church does so much good work. But they are only pulling this because it is a poor black community. If that were not so why not pull out all of their charity work from Texas where the death penalty is a way of life.
I am not black but this stinks. Again the church does a ton of work for poor and homeless people across this nation. This just devalues all the volunteering that Catholics do in this nation.
Well the church ever get it moral leadership back in this country? Probably not with such evil guys at the top level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
November 12, 2009 3:08 PM
Go for it. Call their bluff. Let the mask come off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
November 12, 2009 3:09 PM
The catholic church has no credibilty on social issues when it represses women rights, gays and for years has protected child abusers. Get the fuck out of the political arena and stop with trying to force your views on the world. Revoke their status for tax-exempt and force them to be a registired lobbyist group and have them lobby the tea-baggers! The catholic church is a blight on the people of the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason
November 12, 2009 11:36 PM in reply to Obama1st
Hey, it's ok...you can tell us how you really feel about the Catholic Church.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 12, 2009 3:27 PM
The church is bluffing. I seriously doubt they'd actually stop providing services to homeless people in the city.
Such a move would be disastrous for them as an organization; they'd be bleeding members left and right as lay Catholics who are lukewarm or even supportive of same-sex marriage leave the church for making a commitment to abandoning its charity work as a protest against civil rights.
If the church were to actually do this, they would be showing that they are even more corrupt and morally bankrupt than the public perceieves them to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
November 12, 2009 3:37 PM
Yes, do what we say or the poor guy gets it. Sounds very Christ like, eh? And these guys have tax exempt status.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sisterkevin
November 12, 2009 3:37 PM
Fine, and then we'll yank your tax exempt status and prosecute all the other pedophile priests you still have hidden around the world
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
November 12, 2009 3:39 PM
Because that's what Jesus would do. Can the religious go fuck themselves now? I'm really tired of their terrorism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
November 13, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Everyone should hang out with Quakers more often.
Just sayin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
November 12, 2009 3:43 PM
Starve the Poor - Now there's Christian charity for ya.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JAH LIVES
November 12, 2009 3:47 PM
That is certainly not suprising from an institution that killed thousands during the incusition, suported and encouraged SLAVERY, made a deal with hitler when he killed thousands of JEWS.
Religion itself is a cancer on mankind and the day it goes away mankind will be better off. I expect nothing more from something so ungodly and evil. It baffles me how 90% of the world's porpulation is so blind to believe anything from these blood sucking VAMPIRES.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 12, 2009 3:59 PM
They must be worried that the anti-discrimination laws will force them to hire straight priests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
November 12, 2009 4:01 PM
Yet another reason I have no hesitance whatsoever in calling out these sleazy religious type for what they are: human scum.
I say let them 'pull out' of D.C. (a highly appropriate term, given their penchant for little boys) and withdraw into the wilds of the Blue Ridge. And leave D.C. to the secular groups that do real good without despoiling little children as a price tag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 12, 2009 4:03 PM
These guys represent Jesus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
November 12, 2009 4:07 PM
Reason number 1,000,321 I am a Recovering Catholic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
November 12, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to dijamo
I only need one:
Blatant Hypocrisy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
November 12, 2009 5:46 PM in reply to dijamo
Gee, I never bothered to catalog mine. You must be super-organized.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
November 12, 2009 4:09 PM
i'm sorry, i'm catholic, but this is so stupid and disgraceful.
i dont know what the catholic church authority is about anymore.
i think they are more focused on being conservative than actually being christ-like, which is realise isquite different from being a christian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
November 12, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to elle a
They want to retunr to the days of the Divine Right of Kings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
November 12, 2009 4:17 PM
Throughout history the roman catholic church is about power and an authority over the society. It has not and will be about being 'christ-like'. I am hoping that DC will tell them to take their message on down the road!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Why all the hate speech? Why not take the high road? Open up your wallets and cover the loss. It's really that simple. The church has the right to do as they please with their money. I'm sure that 10 mil. will be used to help the poor, somewhere.
This is the perfect opportunity for liberals to demonstrate their deep, personal commitment to the poor and shine like a beacon of light for all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
November 12, 2009 4:40 PM in reply to Silence
We are. We continue to. We have always done.
Buy you enjoy pretending to be a clever kiddie by exposing your utter ignorance.
And as we can do more than a few things at once, we adults will continue to campaign for these right wing lobbyists to have their tax exempt status canceled - when they use such threats against poor innocent people, all to lobby for their right to remain bigots, they no longer a church - they are a lobbying firm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 12, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to cinesimon
"they no longer a church - they are a lobbying firm." Especially recently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 12, 2009 7:56 PM in reply to cinesimon
Are you offering money from your own wallet or from the wallet of another? You see, if the funds are not derived from one's own labor, it isn't charity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 12, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to Silence
In that case the Catholic Church performs very little true charity since most of its money comes from the donations of others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 13, 2009 6:35 AM in reply to AJM
The money is given "freely" to the church. Therefore, it is charity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 12, 2009 8:30 PM in reply to Silence
How about you pull your head out of your rear and grow up? I know it might be hard, seeings sitting around and attempting to insult people is all you're good at. But you will be better for it, I promise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EndTheEcho
November 12, 2009 9:33 PM in reply to Silence
Are we sure that the $10 million in charity is all church provided money, or their contract with the DC government?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
November 13, 2009 1:52 AM in reply to Silence
Well, see, at least part of it is 'our money':
Also from the article (emphasis added for highlight):
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.
See that bolded bit? If the Church wants to turn down the government's money, then they don't have to comply. Of course, that government money will then go to some other social services organization that does actually follow the law...
You're 100% right: the Church can do as they please with their money. The issue they have here is they want to continue spending our money, while exempted from the laws governing organizations that receive public funding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RuperttheBear
November 12, 2009 4:32 PM
Well, that's mighty white of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cheryl44
November 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Fine. See ya.
Signed, the IRS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ojim
November 12, 2009 4:36 PM
wow. just wow.
how CHRISTIAN of you to do such a thing. makes me proud to have turned my back on you altar-boy-humping and billion-dollar-settlement-paying buggerers (literally) a long time ago.
you will get not another dime from me. i guarantee it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ojim
November 12, 2009 4:39 PM
how REPUBLICAN of you to punish those who have done nothing wrong....wait a minute, those people CHOSE to be poor.
WWJD? in true republican fashion, he would jackboot those poor people into submission and then punish them for being so insolent. as to ahve a government that would allow for gay marriage to be legal. much less accepted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 12, 2009 4:49 PM
I hope that is the case. I think that the Church is taking the right position here in insisting that it retain control of its own employment practices. I would hate to see the poor of the city suffer for this, however. If, as Council Member Catania says, the Church can stop administering city service contracts without it amounting to a disruption to city services, that would be much better. Hopefully someone else (Episcopalians?, Methodists?, Jews?) can pick up the contracts that the Church has to drop without much disruption to the actual clients of these services.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 12, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
I see. So if a White Supremacist organization decides it doesn't want to extend employee benefits to mixed-race married couples, that would be okay, too. Right?
They're not being required to marry them. They're not even being required to approve. They're just being required to treat them like everybody else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 12, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
What can I say, save that I do not consider the analogy especially apt. In any event, it seems to me that the really offensive aspect of your hypothetical would be that a White Supremacist organization is getting city funds at all, not that it was spending them in a fashion consistent with its own mission. Perhaps, of course, as others here are suggesting, it is already offensive that city contracts are going to the Catholic Church in the first place. If so, I suppose it is best that they come to an end now. In any event, I stand by my earlier point - I hope that Catania is correct and that this creates as little disruption as possible to the clients of these city services.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 12, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Exactly - it's time to sweep out all the "faith-based" nonsense that the Bushies helped put in place. Giving religious organizations government money as long as they "promise" not to proselytize is like letting a child molester that's "promised" to behave run a daycare center. In some case, quite *literally* like that...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 12, 2009 5:22 PM in reply to Matt Jones
I really have to doubt that D.C. contracts with the Catholic Church had anything to do with Bush-era initiatives. I confess that I do not know details about D.C., but I know that in St. Louis, where I live, city contracts with various church-run charities have been in place for decades. Such contracts simply make good business sense. The city has X amount of money it can afford to spend on shelters, soup-kitchens, etc. If it spends that money to hire city employees to run those shelters, soup-kitchens, etc, it can only hire Y employees. If it gives that money to a church, however, the church can recruit volunteers to run the outfit (or draw on the supply of super-cheap, well educated labor otherwise known as "nuns") and more of the money goes towards actual services instead of overhead and administrative costs. In other words, if you really cut religious charities out of the picture, all you would achieve, apart from your feeling of purity and right, would be to ensure that there are fewer beds in the shelter and less soup in the kitchen. To my mind, buying moral satisfaction for middle class secularists at the cost of human suffering of the homeless and hungry is a rather poor bargain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 12, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
"To my mind, buying moral satisfaction for middle class secularists at the cost of human suffering of the homeless and hungry is a rather poor bargain."
How interesting that you would say that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 12, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
As I made clear above, I am not really trying to defend the contracts with the Church. If D.C. residents feel that an organization that treats hetero- and homosexual employees differently is morally analogous to an organization that treats black and white employees differently, then it is only sensible and right that D.C. should terminate its contracts with such organizations. It would be a pity, however, if this should lead to contracts with other churches (Episcopalian, Methodist, ELCA, etc) being canceled even though they have sexual-orientation non-discrimination policies in place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 12, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
The city is not terminating its contracts with the church. The church is terminating its charitable work in DC in order to "[buy] moral satisfaction...at the cost of human suffering of the homeless and hungry". A poor bargain, indeed.
The Church is being churlish. They are simply being required to follow the law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. Instead, they want to able to pick and choose which of those they'll obey and which they won't, which was the point of my analogy with a white supremacist group. You can't pick and choose which groups you'd like to be able to discriminate against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
November 12, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Fair enough. Phrase it however you like. The dispute runs thus:
1) City pays Church to administer city owned shelters.
2) City creates new rules morally offensive to Church.
3) City says "comply with new rules or else end the contract."
4) Church responds "we choose to end the contract."
This does not mean that the Church will cease entirely to perform charitable works. It does mean, however, that it will cease to administer certain city-owned shelters. I fail to see how it is the Church that is injuring the homeless here. To my eyes, the instigator of any injury in this unfortunate mess is the city. In any event, I hope, as I have already said above, that the actual human toll is minimal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 12, 2009 6:22 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
"To my eyes, the instigator of any injury in this unfortunate mess is the city."
In other words, if only the Church were allowed to discriminate against who they please, everything would be fine. How unreasonable of the city to make such demands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
November 12, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
When the church refuses to extend civil rights to all of its employees, then the church is injuring its employees. When the church cuts off services that it is providing to innocent third parties in its insistence on its perrogative to break the law, then the church is injuring those third parties.
Morality evolves. The RCC clings to archaic moral stances for the sake of maintaining its hegemonic position of spiritual broker between God and the masses. The result has been an unprecedented loss of membership while the church hierarchy becomes more reactionary. In this respect, they are an analog to the current GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 12, 2009 8:01 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Another way to view this. Church: We spend 10 million in your city on charity work. If you pass this we will stop. If you don't pass this, we will spend 10 million.
Morally, this is perilously close to a bribe.
If the "Church" is truly only concerned that they be allowed to discriminate gays and not with influencing the deliberations of the city council, they could simply have said we could not participate in any activities which would require us to follow this new law and therefore we will give to other charities the 10 million we would otherwise have spent on our own charity work.
I'm sure they could have found enough morally deserving elderly and children to spend this money on.
There is also this parable about casting the first stone ....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
November 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Ok then. Stop doing charity work for political reasons and have your non-profit status taken away.
Someone has to start playing hardball with Organized Bigotry when it falsely hides behind the 1st amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
November 12, 2009 5:55 PM
This is a bluff. The church is not going to stop doing charity work.
I wonder why they are passing this now. This is a bad strategic move if you are in favor of gay marriage. All it is going to do is get put on a ballot where it will be voted down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
West CoastNat
November 12, 2009 6:26 PM
What would Jesus say?
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Matthew 22:21
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2
"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" Matthew 22:36-40
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"
(Matthew 25.35-40
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
prius04
November 12, 2009 6:34 PM
I'm starting to get very annoyed with the term: "Gay rights activist".
Shouldn't it be Civil Rights Activist? Or Human Rights Activist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jedermann
November 12, 2009 6:44 PM
Allow gay marriage and I'll shoot my dog.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 12, 2009 7:50 PM in reply to jedermann
Shoot you dog and I'll call the police.
(And that is probably the only threat in this article and thread that's actually serious.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
November 12, 2009 6:50 PM
Look at what happened in SF a few years ago - the RCC backed off. Cardinal Darth Vader had to take it back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 12, 2009 7:07 PM
The Church doesn't print money and it no longer has slave labor (nuns) to work for nothing.
Catholic Charities once received almost all of my meager charitable contributions until the increased pressure on the Charities from a more conservative church made me begin to doubt that they could fulfill their social service functions without bias.
I think the Church hurts itself. Sure, it can stop serving the poor but Catholics can also stop funding the Church.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Laustinspace
November 12, 2009 7:13 PM
This is a bluff by the bishop of the diocese. He wouldn't/couldn't stop the laity from providing services even if he wanted to. Washington DC should call his stupid bluff and leave some real egg on the guy's face.
I'm a social justice-oriented Catholic and I'm confident that this bishop is bluffing or he's totally deranged. Either way, it's an empty, stupid threat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
West CoastNat
November 12, 2009 7:18 PM
Why on Earth would a spokesman for God have to "bluff" anything? It's becoming pretty clear that religion is just another social institution, like unions or political parties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
November 12, 2009 7:57 PM
Let them stop their charity, and then tax the fuck out of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Giggidy
November 12, 2009 8:22 PM
The Catholic Church is just scared that they won't have anymore priests if homosexuals can lead truly equal lives. The closet is their only pipeline.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 12, 2009 8:23 PM
There must be a considerable number of gays with discretionary income in the DC area. Maybe they ought to pick up the contracts the Church drops and turn the tables on the hypocrites.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 12, 2009 8:25 PM
What a piece of shit. Let them stop...Then run them into the ground with taxes. If they're going to simply shut down because the law will require them to treat humans as humans, then deprive them of the laws that say they can't be taxed. I bet they'll come around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
November 12, 2009 9:06 PM
So much better to protect pediphiles than to accept gays.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimwolf359
November 12, 2009 9:13 PM
This is one of the reasons why I left the Catholic Church. The Faith of my youth which I loved beyond words. No more.
Since the Church insists on being a Political Advocacy Group, then their Tax Exempt Status should be voided. Tax them and lets see what happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimwolf359
November 12, 2009 9:18 PM
I noticed that the Bishop of Providence, RI is taking on Rep. Patrick Kennedy over his opposition to the Stupak Amendment and his vote on the HRC Bill. Not a good fight to pick imho.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 12, 2009 9:27 PM
Call their bluff and tell them to kiss off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal
November 12, 2009 9:27 PM
Oh! That's why I rejected Catholicism! Thanks for the reminder TPM!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EndTheEcho
November 12, 2009 9:44 PM
The way religious organizations get their contracts is by abiding by the rules of the funders (usually government) that includes not discriminating in service or hiring. Often they do this by setting up a parallel but separate entity.
As other posters have pointed out, the church does not need to take government contracts, while these social services are to help the needy, if the church is not funding or supplementing the amount of the contract, are they truly providing charity in these services. Will someone else jump at the chance to get those contracts and serve the community.
I would be really interested to hear how much of the $10 million is church money vs DC gov't money. Of those homeless beds they provide, do they get any government money for them? If I was a city council member, I would have the DC Child and Family Services Agency staff get that information and document how much the Catholic Church receives in public funding to provide social services. That is very different than the church providing their own charity with their own money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
November 12, 2009 10:52 PM
The good bishops seem to have confused the phrase of rendering unto Caesar to mean they have a right to render Caesar as the word is defined in disposal of dead livestock. Their salvation song seems to be that the way to heaven is spreading hell on earth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trittydi
November 12, 2009 10:55 PM
Is the country then going to be hostage to the whim of the catholic church - which imagines itself very much more important than it really is?
This is a civil rights issue. Let the catholic church be on the wrong side of THAT and see how that sits with Americans.
Let's then strip them of their tax-exempt status too.
DC needs to pass the Gay marriage law rather than set a precedent that the catholic church can push the rest of the country around. If they get their way in DC - they'll do it elsewhere in the country.
Let them deal with the fallout of their unchristian-like behavior.
*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 13, 2009 7:04 AM in reply to trittydi
So, let's take a look at the problem. You want complete separation of church and state, possibly the eradication of all churches and religion, yet you strongly oppose the church terminating a service contract with the state.
Is this correct?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
November 12, 2009 11:40 PM
This comes from the top. Look to the Pope for the orders these bishops are marching to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
November 13, 2009 12:17 AM
so, the church would impose consequences on the poor, marginalized, oppressed, the most vulnerable in society? Yeah, that's incredibly Christlike. Way to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Verified
November 13, 2009 12:51 AM
The real test for whether the church actually practices the charity taught by Christ will be whether they maintain those homeless beds on their own, after they leave their affiliation with DC. If they honestly believe homosexuality is a sin, they will expose themselves as hypocrites by rejecting the person they accuse of being a "sinner." I don't deny there have always been virulent homophobes in the patriarchy of the RC church, but the virulence has certainly increased since the ascent of Pope Benedict, who I believe promotes these arrogant policies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
November 13, 2009 1:34 AM
Let's keep the focus on what they are actually saying; the Catholic church says it will intentionally punish the weak, the poor, the sick, the homeless, and the children, if a governmental entity recognizes a CIVIL contract between two consenting adults?
How christian of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
richard2
November 13, 2009 2:54 AM
I'm a former Catholic clergyman. I've also been out of the closet for 30 years. There are times when I wish all of the gay Catholic clergy would turn orange. That's a 'lotta orange.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 13, 2009 7:11 AM in reply to richard2
May I ask why you became a member of the clergy in a church that opposes your way of life?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
November 13, 2009 8:42 AM
Roger Williams must be rolling over in his grave. But hey, if we dropped their tax-exempt status, we could pay for part of healthcare!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKDC
November 13, 2009 1:54 PM
Definitely a bluff - the Council will call them on it and they will back down.
One small, niggling edit to the article? Bishop Chane is head of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, not the "District's Episcopal church."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?