However, I was very disappointed to read in the Washington Post today that the Archbishop is supporting and encouraging acts of civil disobedience. After signing ‘the document’ Ms. Gibbs goes back and tries to cover up the issue by saying that’s not what he really means. C’mon folks you can’t have it both ways. I just wonder how Wuehl would feel if these acts of civil disobedience that he is supporting were acted out against him? I’ve been in a church service where someone stood up in the middle of a minister’s remarks and acted out. It’s not pretty – - but it is ‘civil disobedience’. I feel like the Archbishop has stopped shepherding and started lobbying. We’ve got enough lobbyist in this city.

Until then, I will pray that these ‘acts of civil disobedience’ supported by the Archbishop don’t find a way into the Mass – - for his sake, and for the church.

Bill, what do you have in mind when you speak of a fair-handed way to deal with this policy?

The Church with all its resources and past record of Christian works has worked best as a reassuring, guiding hand during times of change. Although his Excellency makes some valid points that assuage some of my worries that the Church is acting as a powerful, dictatorial lobby; in my opinion, he is still offering points of view that can and should be softened. Although I have to admit ignorance about the make-up of the DC Council, my gut feeling is that it is probably probably faced with the daunting task of handling this policy in an even, fair-handed way. I know they didn’t wake up some morning and decide to put the Catholic Church in their target sights. Perhaps they haven’t articulated or thought through their position well but that doesn’t mean they deserve to boxed into the religious freedom box that they’re in.

I’m disappointed in the fact that previously helpful and useful services to a struggling district are, although perhaps not explicitly, implicitly held hostage here. What could lessen that effect is if both sides of the issue ratcheted down the rhetoric and quit firing broadsides claiming x will have to happen when y is decided upon.
My advice on that is to work towards a better result and then wait to see what happens, rather than determine the end ahead of time. Both sides may end up being suprised.

Both sides could also decide to come to the negotiating table working together towards a more open, helpful dialogue. I Ching provides helpful advice here in my opinion – change often brings good fortune. Many would say difficult change has reaped many benefits with President Obama and this country. Of course, others would not. Further, ridiculous, misguided change is of course not useful for anyone but with the right attitude and work, that doesn’t have to be the end result here.

Perhaps both sides have already adopted the advice mentioned here and this writing is out of date. Hopefully that is already the case.

My fervent hope is that God will continue to bless the Catholic Church and His Excellency with the requisite wisdom needed to find whatever way is possible to help others and work with others of different faiths and beliefs. I also hope that the DC Council can find a way to help them to continue to do just that.

When you sign up for insurance, there is no spot for checking off whether you use contraception or not. Therefore, the Church has no way of knowing if you engage in this sinful practice. However, when you sign on your insurance for that your policy also covers, as a beneficiary, someone of the same sex, roughly the same age, and at the same address, it is kind of obvious what is going on. Thus, offering insurance to the couple is a tacit approval of their sinful relationship.

The Church is not fighting against benefits for same sex couples – it is preserving its long standing teaching on human sexuality as a precious gift from a loving God for the purposes of the oneness of the couple and children.

When the Church is an employer, she limits benefits based on her beliefs. My wife and I are employed by the Church. Our health care coverage will not cover an abortion nor contraception. There is no double standard.

Yes, the Church receives 75% (I presume your are right on this figure, I thought it was lower) from the city and spends 100% to help EVERYONE – regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or orientation. The Church has always cared for the poor. We have built an extensive network of hospitals in this country – largely through the generosity of religious women. Catholic Charities has a long history of being an exceptional steward of social services caring for the homeless, the drug user, the incarcerated, etc. Consider how much good our educational system has done – largely without the support of public funds. There are children of same sex couples being educated in Catholic schools today, gay men and women being helped with drug addiction or housing today, and many being loving cared for in Catholic hospitals.

When a person works for the Church, it will only recognize hetrosexual marriages. This will limit the options for some who are in a same sex relationship and would want to work for the Church. If the DC Council allows for this religious exemption, then the fine partnership of compassion forged over many years between the city and the Church can continue. If the exemption is not forth coming, then the city will not award contracts and licenses to the Church. It is the city that is changing the terms of the relationship between the Church and itself and it will be the poor who will suffer – doubly so. Why? Because the Church does a good job of providing exceptional services with little money. Just note the cost difference between educating an elementary student through a Catholic student and a public school.

So 25% will continue to be served – but than other 75% (based on what you believe the city provides) will not be served by other agencies because they are not equipped to be as effecient or as effective as Catholic Charities.

The Church is passionate about compassion. Jesus is the source of that passion. He is also the source of our teachings on human sexuality. We must preserve the unity of Christ as best we can given our flawed and limited – and sinful – nature as human beings.

Contrary to earlier talk, we now know that employer provided health benefits are regulated under federal law with a state pre-emption. Therefore this law will make no requirements of any employer (religious or secular) in that regard. With the matters of dispute now narrowed, some agreement should be able to be worked out.

I further appreciate the Archbishop’s statement that all people have equal dignity, regardless of sexual orientation. I take that as a rejection of the testimony the Archdiocese presented many years ago to the DC Council opposing full repeal of DC’s sodomy law. Certainly laws that call for putting homosexuals in jail or levying fines against homosexuals is not an affirmation of dignity.