quote: 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.
It is also exactly why, though religious and other private groups do much good work, government must bear the responsibility for the lion's share of social services. We cannot leave care for those who need help primarily in the hands of those who reserve the right to withhold services from whomever they will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Catholic Charities made a similar decision in Boston - prompting the resignation of several board members. They had been facilitating a small number of adoptions by same-sex families for years until the bishops "cracked down".
I am horrified that, instead of continuing to allow gay people to adopt, they prefer that women with an unwanted pregnancy have one less option.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems entirely reasonable to me. It also illustrates why the city ought not to be leaning on outside organizations to provide social services in the first place.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can think that their beliefs are dumb, but everybody has to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, Are you asking me? I am not sure of the relevance of your question. Could you explain?
ETA: Omega, I am not sure what you mean. "They" can have whatever beliefs they want. I am sad that my Church officially holds this position, but churches have the right to believe what they want. Because they have that right, we cannot leave important services in their hands.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: You can think that their beliefs are dumb, but everybody has to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
This isn't a question of rights.
It is morally reprehensible to give such an ultimatum. Imagine, denying the needy valuable social services because of political goings on that are frankly beyond their control.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: It is morally reprehensible to give such an ultimatum. Imagine, denying the needy valuable social services because of political goings on that are frankly beyond their control.
Oh, please. They're not doing anything of the sort. The city's subcontracting a significant chunk of services out to them. The city recently changed the rules of that agreement to an extent that the church isn't comfortable with, so they're telling the city that unless they go back to the original agreement, they'll have to find somebody else to do the work. No aspect of this is unreasonable or immoral.
(I have more than a little firsthand experience with being sanctimoniously informed that I needed to stay in a position for the Greater Good. Oddly enough, the world always managed just fine when I finally had enough and quit...)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Libertarian and Conservatives argue that all charity should be done by those like churches. But what we have here is a church that offers such social services blackmailing a city. It will cut off all social services in that city if the city does not enact legislation that it desires.
This is a great argument against those Libertarians and Conservatives. For if we lay all our social services not in the hands of the government but in the hands of a church, then how long before we are living under a theocracy.
This is the same way that Hamas made its way into power in Lebanon and parts of Palestine. They offered social services--health care, food for the poor, education, that the state refused or could not provide. From there becoming the state was easy.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It will cut off all social services in that city if the city does not enact legislation that it desires.
This is flat out factually incorrect. It's wrong. If you think this is what happening, you don't know what you are talking about.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sputtering threads of indignation are a lot more effective if you get your facts straight. Otherwise you expose yourself for having a thoughtless, kneejerk reaction that you didn't think about. How is that persuasive?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with katharina - the church isn't blackmailing the city, or threatening to cut off all the services it provides. It's saying that it won't provide services that are conditioned on specific rules that it does not agree with (services which it appears in this case are funded publicly).
I also have some sympathy for the point of view that the end result could be negative, and if you think the new rules are correct, for feeling that the church should suck it up and follow them, rather than permit things to get worse instead.
But if the church follows through on its ultimatum, it shouldn't stop the church from independently offering services that do not require a government contract, and it should not stop the government from contracting the services through another entity. So painting it as a net loss of everything the church used to do is inaccurate (even if you believe there will be a smaller net loss because the church was particularly effective as a contractor).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some Libertarian and Conservatives argue that all charity should be done by those like churches. But what we have here is a church that offers such social services blackmailing a city. It will cut off all social services in that city if the city does not enact legislation that it desires.
A Libertarian might reasonably say that this is a problem with the city having such legislative powers, rather than the church.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How dare they not devote time and resources to causes they don't believe in! What IS this world coming to? Don't they know that religions aren't ALLOWED to have their own beliefs? Don't they know that if the state wills it, they should abandon their belief systems and work towards a goal they don't support? How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources? How dare they refuse payment for a job they don't want to do?
My actual question is: Don't they know that accepting money comes with strings, and it makes people think they own you? It isn't worth it. Let the government find some other contractor.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. The Catholic Charity gets to put its money where its mouth is and will forgo city money in order to stick to their principles. The city gets to find a different contractor or can setup its own services free of religion.
Kinda seems like a win win.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't decided whether I think there's anything really wrong with this or not yet. But man, it sure as hell doesn't play well in media terms.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on who the target audience is. It probably plays well to the side of the Anglican schism that the Catholic Church is courting.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I dunno. The Catholic Charity gets to put its money where its mouth is and will forgo city money in order to stick to their principles. The city gets to find a different contractor or can setup its own services free of religion.
Kinda seems like a win win.
Not when the Catholic charities make such a bad name for themselves this way, but generally otherwise a win in terms of demonstrating why the churches shouldn't collude with public funding use.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe those who find this church's decision reprehensible would be more understanding if they had a comparable alternative to rejection of gay rights to consider. I can understand not being able to interpret that as anything but wrong.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the arguments that I've heard against official recognition of gay marriage is that churches will be forced to recognize them as well and perform gay marriages as well.
I don't think that's true, because my church has certainly not been forced to officially marry anyone that hasn't been considered qualified, but maybe saying that churches don't have a choice in this matter fans the flames who are nervous that forcing a church to act contrary to their beliefs is exactly what recognizing gay marriage would do.
In other words, if you want to claim that churches won't be forced to act contrary to their beliefs, don't get mad when a church refuses to act contrary to their beliefs.
The mutual arrangement is no longer mutually acceptable. So, the arrangement ends.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm generally shocked that the government is subcontracting to the Church. Especially as I have often enough heard people rail about separation of Church and State, it surprises me that there would be so very little separation there of all places.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's generally cheaper for the government - less money to overhead, less to the profit of the subcontractor, and less money devoted to setting up the infrastructure.
As long as the arrangement is mutually acceptable - and there are lots of strings on both sides - I think it makes a lot of sense for the government.
It's a miserably stupid idea for churches, because of the strings. Once the government gives you money, people think they own you. Better to stay away.
It happens a lot more in high tax states in like Massachusetts, where citizens give comparatively microscopic amounts to charity and also pay enormously high taxes. The states where people give the most to charity are generally the states where taxes are lower. Once people start voting more of their resources to the state, then fewer resources go to private organizations that could step in.
What I think is REALLY stupid is having the high taxes in the first place instead of people voluntarily giving to non-profits devoted to the cause. Some people consider giving the legislature control to be a net good, despite the high overhead cost of routing money through the state bureaucracy that chips away at the resources available for the actual services. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the stand by the Catholic Church on this matter is right. It should not work hand-in-hand with any secular regime that promotes something the church regards as wrong, and a violation of their faith.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
What I think is REALLY stupid is having the high taxes in the first place instead of people voluntarily giving to non-profits devoted to the cause. Some people consider giving the legislature control to be a net good, despite the high overhead cost of routing money through the state bureaucracy that chips away at the resources available for the actual services. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
I guess I just grew up being taught to give money to the Church anyway. Give to Caesar what it Caesar's and to God what is God's -- in the case of money, the first ten percent of my paycheque.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
General trends suggest that the higher the taxes, the lower the giving, regardless of average net income.
Perhaps it is because people feel that many of things charities might do are done by the state. For instance, few if any charities exist to buy guns for a militia, although there are many to get other stuff for troops that the government doesn't cover. I wonder if it is a case that once the government declares a certain service its province, the private organizations often melt away, resulting in perhaps roughly the same amount of resources going towards instead of a doubling up of them.
Or, perhaps it is philosophy - states that have lower taxes are often conservative, and conservatives often both value independence more and also are more likely to be religious. The first means less voting for the government to handle providing services, and the second results in more money given to charity and non-profits.
If there are fewer charities in existence as a result of the government taking over various functions, perhaps there are fewer charities that appeal to people, and that results in less giving.
Even if everyone gave 10% of their paycheck, and paychecks remained the same, higher taxes would result in lower amounts given to charity because the net paycheck would be lower.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mission statement of Catholic Charities is this:
quote: The mission of Catholic Charities is to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice in social structures, and to call the entire church and other people of good will to do the same.
It saddens me that they are willing to compromise their commitment to social justice over something like this.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like there is going to be a compromise no matter what. Perhaps they feel that they can hold to both points of doctrine by conducting charitable acts without government money, while government can put to a contractor who accepts the terms.
As dramatic as that would be to make the point, the Catholic church is not getting out of the charity business.
I don't understand why there seems to be this desire to misrepresent the facts. If the facts justify outrage on their own, why this desire to misrepresent them? And if not, why the outrage?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that there are two arguments for smaller government - government that does not provide services to the poor. One argument is that such services shouldn't be provided. We have no duty to take care of people who cannot take take care of themselves. I do not see how a Christian could make this argument.*
The other argument, which I could understand from a Christian point of view, is that such services should be provided but that it was not the role of government to provide them. That, with smaller government, private and religious charities would take care of the poor. Government should stick to the military and maybe building roads. There has been a move in recent years to "offload" social services to private and religious charities.
The decision by that archdiocese in Washington illuminates for me exactly why the second argument fails. Churches and other private groups should have the right to make their own rules about who and how they will help.** This is why we can't depend on private and religious groups for this and the government must stay in the business of providing social services and help for people who need it.
*Not to limit this to Christians but I don't claim to speak for other religions.
**As a Catholic I think this is a bad and wrong decision.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Churches and other private groups should have the right to make their own rules about who and how they will help.** This is why we can't depend on private and religious groups for this and the government must stay in the business of providing social services and help for people who need it.
**As a Catholic I think this is a bad and wrong decision.
Exactly. Everyone who believes that smaller government is always better seems to forget that private charities are just like humans--incredibly prone to irrational discrimination. That's not to say I'm against private charities. I think that private charities are a more efficient method, with less administrative overhead. However, that efficiency comes with a price. Or, as a wise person said, "You can have it good, cheap, and fast. Pick any 2."
Because I kind of thought the point of charity was to give without judging. Of course, the without judging part is a little tough for most humans. And no, I am not above judging my fellow humans, in moments of weakness/imperfection.
I'm not sure there are easy answers, in the here and now, on this issue. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As dramatic as that would be to make the point, the Catholic church is not getting out of the charity business."
I'm not implying that they are. Of course, the Catholic church works a great deal on social justice issues all over the world. I'm just thinking of the impact it would have in my own city, if our Catholic Charities made the same decision. After the hurricanes, many of our social service agencies, secular and religious, ran out of money and had to shut down. Catholic Charities is providing services that nobody else can provide; if they decided to pull these services, I can't imagine what these people would do. I know the circumstances are different in DC than in Louisiana, and the situations aren't comparable, but truly, I can't imagine what would happen if our Catholic Charities stopped doing what it was doing. Even for a few weeks. I can't believe the DC branch of the organization is willing to do this.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That, still, is not the situation going on here. Private Catholic charities are not pulling services - what they are doing is refusing to administer services paid for by the government. The government isn't running out of money, and the Catholic church isn't pulling all services. It still isn't applicable.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: After the hurricanes, many of our social service agencies, secular and religious, ran out of money and had to shut down. Catholic Charities is providing services that nobody else can provide; if they decided to pull these services, I can't imagine what these people would do.
My point is that we can provide the services that Catholic Charities decides not to provide - or not to provide to everyone who needs them. We must.
posted
If you held the belief that when the government does things, it does them better, that would follow. If you have concluded that private institutions do things better, a different solution might come to mind.
So, the argument there would be to explain how things are better overall when the government does them than when charities do them.
I'm torn - I think private institutions do most things better, but also that some oversight must happen and it's easier to enforce standards among government employees. Otherwise, you get debacles like the Acorn scandal last month.
Then again, rightly, government employment is less nimble and agile, and so not as flexible to meet changing situations. On the fifth hand, that's better for the employees in terms of security, although everyone suffers if things stagnant because too many resources are sucked up by the state that there is not enough left fuel the economy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mission statement of Catholic Charities is this:
"The mission of Catholic Charities is to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice in social structures, and to call the entire church and other people of good will to do the same. "
It saddens me that they are willing to compromise their commitment to social justice over something like this.
That presumes that they will not continue to help people in need, and we have no evidence that this is so. I suspect they would set up alternative means to replace the government-contracted services, or apply more money to other services they perform.
To continue with the government contract, the Church would have to compromise its teachings. It's completely understandable that they backed away, but they're backing away from the convenience of government contracts, not the needy.
(Note: I completely disagree with their teachings in this regard, but I support their right to stand by them)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government does a better job of providing services because it (we) can't decide to provide services to only some people based on religious discrimination. Or whatever other discrimination a private organization has the right to apply.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very sad to have something built on the ideals of charity, love and forgivness harbor such prideful and antagonistic stances. It is not even worth it to start quoting all the points of the Bible that would tell them to accept those who dont agree with them, and strive to peacefully teach them the way of God.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How DARE they choose where to devote their own resources?
Until they're made to pay taxes like the rest of us, I don't feel any pity for them.
This right here. They are granted tax exempt status because of their chartable works. They want to pull a stunt like that then it's high time they start paying taxes like the rest of us.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: They are granted tax exempt status because of their chartable works. They want to pull a stunt like that then it's high time they start paying taxes like the rest of us.
The entire class of tax-exempt non-profit organizations ultimately exists because the government isn't allowed to meddle in the affairs of religion (but also isn't allowed to recognize it, which is why secular nonprofits are exempt as well)... and what you're saying is that unless they allow the government to meddle in their affairs, they shouldn't be tax exempt. It so doesn't work that way.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: They are granted tax exempt status because of their chartable works. They want to pull a stunt like that then it's high time they start paying taxes like the rest of us.
The entire class of tax-exempt non-profit organizations ultimately exists because the government isn't allowed to meddle in the affairs of religion (but also isn't allowed to recognize it, which is why secular nonprofits are exempt as well)... and what you're saying is that unless they allow the government to meddle in their affairs, they shouldn't be tax exempt. It so doesn't work that way.
No they are granted tax exempt to facilitate good works. The same as any private charity organisation. Once they start trying to strong arm people to get what they want...and that is exactly what they are doing in DC, then they are no longer a non profit charity they are a political organization.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way this posts title reads, as if the Catholic Church was going to stop ALL of its social service programs (including the ones funded entirely by the church) then I would say the Catholic church is, once again, showing that they're really a bunch of money hungry, power hungry, jerks.
On the other hand, it seems like the truth of the matter is that the church has decided to cease being a subcontractor for the city for a number of programs because the city is asking it to act in ways that it simply cannot tolerate. As long as the church gives sufficient notice that the programs can be rebid, then I don't see any problem.
I am, technically, Catholic. I've lived virtually my entire life in a "government by Catholicism" situation, much as I imagine people in Utah live in a "Government by Mormonism" situation. Even though it is my heritage and "official" religion, I have quite a few beefs with the church. Even so, I think they are acting "reasonably" in this case.
Of course, I wish they'd just get of their high horses and realize that gays are people too, but that's not gunna happen any time soon.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: So, uh, what was that about Christianity not being a political religion?
You've touched a nerve, but I'm going to try and be Christian about this (ironic neh?). First, Christianity is designed to be a force for good in the world. It is designed to be a uniform, orderly, structured, attempt at making mankind like God. A double edged sword is that it requires men be permitted to choose whether or not they will emulate it. Because men are involved what could have been a monolith instead is a heterozygous mixture of different ingredients that all label themselves as 100% pure Christian.
In short, it should not be surprising that we have people who reconcile mixing religion with their politics. That does not mean Christianity is a political religion. I recall hearing in a classroom that congress is repeatedly petitioned to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord over the entire country. That is clearly a political issue for those petitioners. People who insist In God We Trust be printed on our currency are also mixing their religion in politics.
Second, This is a moral issue, not a political one. The church cannot in good conscience accept money from the government to provide a service it feels is sinful. What is politically motivating about that?
---
I'm getting so tired of people essentially saying "Love love love love love love love. There that proves why Christians who aren't acting like I would are not exemplifying Jesus, who by the way LOVED constantly."
Why couldn't Jesus have loved the rich man enough to let him keep his riches? Why couldn't Jesus acknowledge the rich Pharisee who gave so much money to charity as well as the poor widow and her mite? Why won't Jesus let people put their hand to the plow and just once look back? What does Jesus mean that if I love my father and mother and sisters and brothers that I'm not fit for the kingdom of heaven? What does it mean when the scriptures says, "Mercy cannot rob justice?"
Jesus set a phenomenal example of being righteous without being self-righteous. His ability to love sinners did not cloud his ability to hate sin. But he also commanded Christians to be perfect even as God who is in heaven is perfect. He also indicated that many self proclaimed Christians wouldn't see the gates of heaven opened to them. Christianity is a long tiresome road that leaves many stragglers behind. It can turn you into the best sort of human being, but it also exposes the demons and hypocrisy inside us. Self-righteous Christians may not get into heaven, but neither will the mocking and laughing unbelievers. It is right that Christians are careful not to fall victim to pride and ostracize unbelievers, but it is also right that unbelievers not ask Christians to put mankind before God.
I myself have questions about homosexuality, but I've also read the scriptures, and heard prophets speaking and God has convinced me that they are true. If the scriptures are incomplete in their depiction of the issue, or if there is a new mandate from God, God himself has channels for making sure his followers know it, until then we are bound by what he has already commanded.
Christianity is not a political religion precisely because it does not allow political expediency to be the foundation of it's approach to life. One need only read about Noah and the ark, Jewish "peculiarity", and Christian persecution to realize that being mocked for obeying God is the lot of all believers.
Do Christians sometimes allow politics to dirty their religion, absolutely, just as non-Christians sometimes laugh at what they see as dated and absurd beliefs. It was written thousands of years ago that in the future men would love themselves more than God. It is love, misplaced love, that is convincing "Christians" (I did use scare quotes) to pursue the affections and approval of their neighbors rather than demonstrate their love for God by obeying him.
I feel like the Catholic church in this instance is trying to obey God, rather than slight homosexuals. Please don't mock them for it. If you have evidence they are acting out of unchristian malice, by all means bring it to light.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
