In the early church, debates on the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity were the talk of the town. The Church fathers record stories of these debates happening in the village square, in the market place and around kitchen tables. A debate is indeed swirling around town, not of the nature of dogma but nonetheless critical to the practice of our faith. In this debate, blogs are the new village square. Over the last couple of weeks in blogs and opinion pieces politicians, college presidents, attorneys, radio hosts, professors and people in the pew have weighed in on how same-sex marriage legislation will alter Catholic Charities partnership with the city.
Under Consideration
I want to respond to Nancy Polikoff’s piece in the Washington Post in which she writes “that Catholic Charities is misleading the public about the impact of the D.C. marriage bill authorizing same-sex marriage.” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/12/how_catholic_charities_could_l.html. The Archdiocese has explored a number of options talked about in the press;including “the San Francisco option” and Ms. Polikoff suggestion to move our health care plan under ERISA. Our research shows that the reality is that the U.S. Labor Department has released that ERISA only applies to pension benefits and not health care. This does not seem to hold promise as a real solution.
She also suggests that what might really be at issue is that Catholic Charities needs to cut its budget and is using the city as a “scapegoat” to deal with budget issues. Now, that seems just plain rude, especially in light of the fact that Catholic Charities recently received an award for its ethical and business standards. In a statement, Edward Orzechowski, President of Catholic Charities writes “everyone, from government to business to nonprofits, has reduced services and programs in this challenging economic environment, and sadly budget pressures will continue to impact everyone – her [Polikoff] comment is insulting to the dedicated staff and volunteers who serve at Catholic Charities every day.
Religious Liberty
As I blogged earlier, at the heart of this debate and at the heart of the Archdiocese’s concern is the erosion of religious liberty as the government increasingly imposes requirements on religious organizations in their policies. Under the narrow religious exemptions in the bill, Catholic Charities might become ineligible to partner with the government in the delivery of social services.
We desire to continue a partnership with the city that has successfully served those people most in need. We know that it would be next to impossible to continue the breadth of our services without this partnership. The language we are proposing insures the kind of religious exemption that is more consistent with existing protections and exemptions under the DC Human Rights Act, the Constitution and federal protective statutes.
It will not be a bad thing if issues related to religious liberty will be discussed with interest and passion around kitchen tables, at the water cooler and in the public forum because they are indeed critical to our practice of the faith.
If I can make a few observations:
“The Archdiocese has explored a number of options talked about in the press;including ‘the San Francisco option”…
If it has, it would be helpful if they would communicate that with leaders on DC Council. My understanding from Councilmembers is that the Archdiocese has not discussed its finding as to the SF option with them.
“Our research shows that the reality is that the U.S. Labor Department has released that ERISA only applies to pension benefits and not health care.”
I think your reasearch is incorrect.
One of the reasons employers seek exemption from ERISA is to avoid certain requirements such as COBRA rights for laid-off employees and the obligation to cooperate with the Courts when they seek to garnish wages for non-payment of child support or alimony. I pray to God that Catholic Charities is not afraid to comply with these just obligations.
“She also suggests that what might really be at issue is that Catholic Charities needs to cut its budget and is using the city as a “scapegoat” to deal with budget issues. Now, that seems just plain rude…”
Yes, it may have well been expressed in a rude way. I will say that based on the scant information that is shared with the lay faithful about the use of our gifts to the Archdiocese, the idea that there are serious financial issues with the Church is present. It has already made an exit from some important aposolates and it certainly seems legitimate to think more are coming.
“Under the narrow religious exemptions in the bill, Catholic Charities might become ineligible to partner with the government in the delivery of social services.
The language we are proposing insures the kind of religious exemption that is more consistent with existing protections and exemptions under the DC Human Rights Act, the Constitution and federal protective statutes.”
I think we can all appreciate that the Archdiocese has modified its original statement from “it will” to “might”. I personally can support the results of the language the Archdiocese proposed. But the langauge was certainly polemetical and not surprisingly made those with the other viewpoint feel the Archdiocese was not acting in good faith.
I would suggest they take a second look at the ERISA issue, this time with competent legal advisors.
We continue to work on all of the issues you raise, even in light of the passage of the bill today. Within the past month the Archdiocese printed a long story in the Catholic Standard about its finances and the challenges we are facing. Thanks for taking the time to post a comment.
Why does the Archdiocese need to discuss its decisions with the DC Council? Are other vendors working with the city subject to that expectation? Why do they need to offer a reason to any, other than those who support the Archdiocese, as to the details of why they are parting company?
I view the DC Council as a rogue group who seem determined to serve their own agenda and IGNORE the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. Seems really ironic to me that they still voice off about lack of representation.
“Why does the Archdiocese need to discuss its decisions with the DC Council? Are other vendors working with the city subject to that expectation? Why do they need to offer a reason to any, other than those who support the Archdiocese, as to the details of why they are parting company?”
No, if the Archdiocese simply wants to part company, it owes no explanation. If they have a suggested amendment to a proposed law, then they do have a need to talk with the lawmakers.
“I view the DC Council as a rogue group who seem determined to serve their own agenda and IGNORE the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. Seems really ironic to me that they still voice off about lack of representation.”
It is an unresolved matter if the Councilmembers are following the will of their constitiuents or not. That matter will be resolved on election day.
We don’t want to end our partnership with the city, because together we do terrific work on behalf of many city residents. We believe we can find a way to work together but not at the expense of our fidelity to the Gospel.