The Archdiocese's ultimatum

I think Mr. Waters is thinking of things only in his perspective and not of the Catholic church. I suppose he wants poor people fed and anything that he supports most any means to make the end. The Church is not primarily focused on just feeding people but feeding souls and doing it the right way. The main asset of the Church is truth and it's job is too dispense this to all that want it. Repecting and helping human life is part of this truth but not the whole or main part. In forcing the Catholic Church to abide by principles it takes as false is not an option for a conscientious believer. We can't compromise truth for anything else or we have nothing lasting to offer people. Food is good, but given along with a lie it is very destructive in the end. The Catholic Church is right to advise the government of what it won't be able to do if these new laws are passed. They need to stick to their principles so they can make a real difference.

"They need to stick to their principles so they can make a real difference." They ARE making a real difference by helping these homeless people. Sticking to their outdated, unjust, and wrong "principles" will do the opposite.

I can understand why someone's faith would prevent him from marrying someone of the same gender. But why would that faith prevent him from providing services to such married couples? Doing so wouldn't taint him in any way, and he can't control what other people do in their private lives.

"Sticking to their outdated, unjust, and wrong 'principles' will do the opposite." The real principle is this - unless someone's choice of marriage partner will cause harm to the partner or to others, that choice is not up for others to approve or disapprove. The principle is that a competent adult is the only one who can and should decide what is best for him or her, and it's not the job of any religion or any other group or belief system to decide otherwise.

Ah, The Good Old Catholic Church once more: Bashing legislators over the head with threats against the needy. So very Christian.

For once the Catholic Church is dead on the mark on this one. In addition to the fact the citizens of the city don't want this law, it's impact on religious organizations and others (not least of which are taxpayers) is unfathonable. The city has no right to dictate to any non government agency that it must do things which conflict with its very foundation. The church should properly abandon its contracts with the city if this law is passed, and it will serve as further proof, that just as envisioned by our founding fathers, DC should not be a city with home rule.

You have it correctly on this page, but the home page link is spelled "Archidocese's"... Who's doing the spell checking?

"The main asset of the Church is truth." Are you kidding me? Would that "truth" include hiding pedophile priests? This Church devalued that asset long ago.

Why am I not surprised? You know, for an organization who isn't taxed (and bloody well should be) they sure are cocky, aren't they? I think it's time we started taxing religious organizations -- especially when they pull social support that the community counted on them to provide.

. Mr. Waters is attempting to portray himself as bigoted against Christianity. I'm no acting expert, but I find the portrayal convincing. .

Last I checked, DC law allows divorce, and forbids discrimination on marital status. Yet the Archdiocese has issued no ultimatum over this. If they can live with DC divorce laws, they can live with DC marriage laws.

What hubris - demaniding that we change our (secular) government laws or they will punish the poor and needy. It would be bad enough if they did not condone child rape for so many years (and maybe still do). No wonder people are leaving the Catholic church in droves - i should know I used to be one. tax them!

Ah, BTBWT. Thanks for the ad hominem logical fallacy. I was wondering when someone would drag out that tired old chestnut. The point is simple: the Catholic Church believes that gay marriage is a social evil. It simply cannot do lots of good if the cost is going to be the promotion of even a little bit of evil. For example, the Church would not abort a baby even if it meant the population of Africa would be fed for life. To do otherwise is moral relativism. So, it seems harsh that the Church is pulling out of its social services. To the Church, it seems harsh that the city is forcing it to promote evil before it can do good. Put differently, the city believes that discrimination is wrong, and the Church believes that promotion of gay marriage is wrong. Instead of just allowing that there is a difference of opinion about deeply-held beliefs, the city is bound and determined to beat up on the Church over it. Fault: government of the District of Columbia.

Nobody is forcing the Catholic Church to continue this ministry. Let them leave! Nobody wants to force them to do anything! All they have to do is STOP TAKING GOVERNMENT MONEY. What we do have a right to complain about is the hypocrisy. They push very hard for government money NOT to be used for the things they are against (abortion) but feel abused if the populace wants government money used according to the law!

The Catholic Church can play politics with the best of them. How pathetic.

My God is compassionate. Sorry about yours.

Suppose you say to an orthodox Jew, "You can only help the poor if you eat pork" and then when she says she cannot, will you say to her, "I see, you don't care about the poor." Maybe if YOU cared about the poor you would not impose such preconditions on Jews (hypothetically) or on the Catholic Church (actually). Let them help as they can, and thank them for the help instead of creating hoops for them to jump through. I see that liberals are more and more into bullying conservatives, and this is going to have bad results. Indeed the bad results are already here. While liberals and social conservatives are fighting, the bankers and the warmongers are taking advantage of these divisions to throw themselves a party.

Lots here, including the author missing the point. The Church is acting as an independent free organization the same as your or I would. They have a right to choose who they do or do not associate with and what they believe so long as they do not impose those beliefs on others. They are not IMPOSING their beliefs. Likewise, the government, and the left zealots here, dont have the right to IMPOSE beliefs onto the church. The church is under no OBLIGATION to provide this service to the poor. In effect, its not the Church choosing to push its social issues, rather, its choosing to maintain its free right of association and beliefs against a discriminatory law. Its also funny that people here comment about the rights of gay/lesbian/etc groups yet freely espouse removing the rights of freedom of religion from the Catholics. Would you be so brave to do so against Muslims? Will you make the same demand of all religions? Since when do the people who commented here on what is "outdated and unjust" have a right to use their decision to make impositions on the church? Its my belief that this law and its supporters are "outdated and unjust" religiously discriminate laws. I have decided that you all should obey my decision about what is "outdated and unjust" so you should all have to live under my rules. After all, I have as much right as you to make such a stupid statement.

Ah, Christians. So heavenly minded they are no earthly good. Any decent people still want to help? Call Martha's Table or any other group of decent, unbigoted people and you can help. Let the Church rot in hell.

Has anybody on this post ever read the First Amendment. In case you haven't, here it is. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This first amendment was written to protect the citizens from tyrants like the DC council. Are they part of the USA or not? Their ordinance won't last a minute before it is challenged and thrown out as unconstitutional. And well it should.

I guess I believe in pay-to-play - if these guys want to have a special tax-exempt status, then they should be disqualified from taking part in politics.

Ah, Christians. ... Call Martha's Table or any other group of decent, unbigoted people and you can help. Let the Church rot in hell. Posted by: bflorhodes ********************************** A great comment from an unbigoted person.

I guess I believe in pay-to-play - if these guys want to have a special tax-exempt status, then they should be disqualified from taking part in politics. Posted by: hohandy1 | November 12, 2009 Politics? Looks to me like its DC thats trying to impose their political and social agenda on the Church? Will you be so brave and outspoken to tell ALL religious groups that dont meet your ideas of right and wrong that they are to be stripped of their rights?

Such arrogant b*stards, the Catholic church, behaving as if this were a theocracy in the Middle Ages. So the priests won't play ball with the civil authorities? TAX THE CHURCH! I bet the Catholics would come crawling if we made a move on their wallets, the hypocritical morality cant would come to an abrupt end, the pederasts that they are.

Hmmm, "Carstonio" where have we seen that ID before? Let us check our list. And there it is. One wonders if the daily sign in is take a toll on said persons???????

Hmmm, "Carstonio" where have we seen that ID before? Let us check our list. And there it is. One wonders if the daily sign in is taking a toll on said person(s)???????

"Such arrogant b*stards, the Catholic church, behaving as if this were a theocracy in the Middle Ages. So the priests won't play ball with the civil authorities? TAX THE CHURCH! I bet the Catholics would come crawling if we made a move on their wallets, the hypocritical morality cant would come to an abrupt end, the pederasts that they are. Posted by: RichardHode " Yes, lets TAX ALL THE CHURCHES... and TEMPLES, IMAMS/MOSQUE, HINDIS, etc... Good job RICHARDHODE, lets also IMPRISON THEM in small camps in the woods and ANYONE ELSE YOU DONT LIKE. We can then indoctrinate them and have them work for their freedom. Should we have big bonfires of bibles, korans, talmud's, etc! Than we can all goose step around and praise your "final solution"!

Hmmm, homosexual activity is more than a "philosophical disagreement". Once again, some "gay reality": The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community. " And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure?? Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? " Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation. And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect. From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis: From Wikipedia: "Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

Another stunningly stupid move by the Catholic church. Where in the New Testament did Christ supposedly say to help the poor unless you were against a ruling by the government? Nowhere that I can remember. The church under Benedict is growing more conservatively extremist and will, no doubt, continue to lose followers. It is bad enough that it will still not come to grips with the sexual abuse that has been perpetrated against the young. Now it won't help the poor in D.C. because it doesn't agree with legislation that the council wishes to pass. Enough! If it wants to be a political entity, then pay the church should pay taxes on all the property it owns. Maybe once they realize how large the bill would be they will shut up.

"In this case, for example, the church manages a number of city-owned homeless shelters." Maybe you all missed this line... If you dont like the church managing your shelters, it should with draw and than DC can raise YOUR taxes and pay for the administrative overhead that you get from the Church. I wonder how many people think it will be as efficient as the Church.

Public money comes with the legal requirements of the government entity that gives it. If you don't want to be subject to those requirements, get your hand out of the public cookie jar. It still boggles my mind that any tax dollars are being given to support any religious program of any kind.

I come from a Faith Tradition that goes back 5 centuries, entered our shores in the very early 17th century and was shared by several of our Founding Fathers. Members of our tradition were early advocates of abolition of slavery and today are supporters of our Gay and Lesbian brethren. We have been and continue to think we are part of the mainstream American Culture of Diversity. Where am I going with this? Namely, I have huge problems with both the government and Faith Traditions unilaterally imposing on others, moral judgments on private behavior. Remember Christ accepted the Tax Collectors and those with leprosy. He made explicit the story of the Good Samaritan, who were despised by the Israelites. I have no problem with any religious organization opting for a conscientious objector status for their private operations. But to shut down charity to the poor - an explicit Christ's mandate - because of a "Church teaching" that Gays and Lesbians are immoral, represents the opinion of arrogant, autocratic, self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical Levites.

"Politics? Looks to me like its DC thats trying to impose their political and social agenda on the Church? Will you be so brave and outspoken to tell ALL religious groups that dont meet your ideas of right and wrong that they are to be stripped of their rights?" Let's pretend that it's 1920 and we're talking about a Muslim organization. Suddenly the election laws gets changed to allow women to vote - but Muslims think women should be second-class citizens and only allowed to do what their husbands tell them to do and they will absolutely refuse to do any charity work in a place that gives women rights because it is against their religous beliefs. Would you side with the government or with the Muslims? The point is - do we let narrow interest third parties, who already occupy a special status, dictate governmental policy to suit their religious beliefs? Divorce is against the teaching of the Cathollic church, but yet somehow, legal in the District. Do you see the Catholic church discriminating against people who they hire or who they serve with their charity based on whether or not people are divorced or not? How would you feel if the Catholic Church pulled this same sort of stunt in an effort to get DC to change its divorce laws?

rohitcuny: 'Suppose you say to an orthodox Jew, "You can only help the poor if you eat pork" and then when she says she cannot, will you say to her, "I see, you don't care about the poor.' Except you have the analogy backwards. In this case the Church is saying, "We will only help the poor if you deny rights to gays." I wonder what Jesus would say about that.

The Catholic church will not withdraw from efforts to assist the needy. They will merely withdraw from running City programs that purport to assist the needy. The barriers to the Church's cooperative venture with the city are erected by the city, not the church. The article quotes some gay activists surprised by the church's position regarding Washington's long standing committment to "gay rights." Someone should acquaint those deluded narcissists with the Church's far longer standing committment to holy living.

"Suppose you say to an orthodox Jew, 'You can only help the poor if you eat pork' and then when she says she cannot, will you say to her, 'I see, you don't care about the poor.'" That's a flawed analogy and does not represent the real issue. A better analogy would be if the orthodox Jew was required to help others who ate pork. Your analogy would work only if the people who staff the Catholic agency were required to get married to people of the same gender.

The church wants to take secular cash but not follow secular rules. If they forego the secular cash, they can then be able to carry on, unobstructed, as the inimitable bigots they truly wish to be. What's their problem?

"But the larger question is this: Is the Church really going to ignore the gospel imperative to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the disadvantaged -- in this case 70,000 -- because it might have to provide better benefits to a few of its own workers?" No, that is not the question. The question is whether a few abnormal people engaging in abnormal behavior is going to threaten 70,000 others. The gay rights legal juggernaut has no problem hurting as many people as possible in pursuit of their agenda. The churches being #1 on their hit list. If a gay couple wants to be married, then move to a gay marriage state. Like Massachutts. People move for a lot lesser reasons. Like a job, school, warm weather, be near relatives, etc. If marriage is really and truly the only thing standing between a GLBT couple and ultimate bliss, then a move to a gay friendly state should be easy for them. And if a GLBT couple keeps whining about "how unfair" when fair is across a state line ... well, marriage just isn't quite the issue they make it out to be.

"Suppose you say to an orthodox Jew, "You can only help the poor if you eat pork" and then when she says she cannot, will you say to her, "I see, you don't care about the poor." Posted by: rohitcuny | November 12, 2009 Ah but. The City Council is not saying "you must eat pork." It is saying, "you must respect people who eat pork" which any Orthodox Jew could do if he/she so chose. The City Council is not telling the Church what to believe. It is telling the Church to respect (i.e., to act within the law) what others believe. As for the whole argument that the Church cannot do good if it believes it is promoting even a little bit of evil... I understand this perspective even if I disagree with it. Fortunately, I doubt there will be a shortage of charities/organizations which will be able to fill the Church's role without the same precondition of agreement on what is good and what is evil.

This really is not a 1st amendment issue. The Roman Catholic Church can "say" what ever it wants. What it can't do is accept government monies without abiding by the rules and laws the govern its acceptance. This is the pickle the RCC has put itself in. It had readily accepted secular gov. money without having the foresight to handle changes in secular law. The church should never had put itself in this position no matter how altruistic the motives. The RCC is now faced with a theological dilema that requires a secular solution; an impossible exercise. Separation of Church and State is as much "the church"'s resposibility as it is the state's. Both sides are eaqually to blame for the fallout for getting invovled with each other in the first place. And, as always, the innocents will suffer the consequences.

The catholic church...once again living up to the word of their founding father...do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The catholic church once again proves that the polish has worn off that once golden sheen...if it ever did.

The archdiocese of Boston pulled the same stunt when Massachusetts instituted full civil marriage for same sex couples. I have no statistics to show that children needing adoption have suffered by the lack of Catholic Charities but I have seen the latest statistics on divorce from Massachusetts. Since same sex couples were allowed to marry civilly in 2004, the divorces rate has dropped back to pre WWII levels. Churches that attempt to enforce their beliefs on everyone through the power of the state demonstrate that their beliefs have no inherent ethical validity. The Roman Catholic diocese of Portland Maine gave more than $500,000 to overturn the Maine law granting civil marriage rights to same sex couples. They have had to close two churches in Lewiston, Maine for lack of funds. Just one more example that this church will stoop to any morally degenerate levels to stuff their cult down everyone's throat.

Tax these "Christians" who threaten government with ultimatums to deny the poor and hungry, and use these taxes on their riches, including their gold and the archbishop's $10,000 prada dress, to pay someone else for these services. The Church apparently doesn't discriminate against gays in their clergy and, in fact, hides pedophile priests. Why should they be able to discriminate against the rest of the gays with taxpayers' money?

What's next? The Catholic church will threaten to pull more services unless D.C. eliminates the sale of all contraceptives? Throws all women in leadership positions out of their jobs? Maybe the church will decide they won't give food to those who won't say they believe in transubstantiation and the infallibility of the pope?

The Catholic Church has its hands full hiding their pedophile priests.

This makes me embarrassed to be a Catholic. Fine, don’t marry gay couples. But you want SO BADLY to be able to openly discriminate against them for something they do in their private lives that you are willing to let tens of thousands of people suffer? That is unforgivable. I encourage all Catholics who actually care about helping others more than worrying about what a gay person does in their own home to call the Archdiocese of DC and tell them what you think! 301-853-4500

commenting on the first reader (kert1); first there is difference between TRUTH and PRINCIPLES . From the catholic church point of view they regard their "faith " as THE truth and every body else is mislead or following the wrong god or no god at all(AS MOST OTHER RELIGIONS DO , TO BE FAIR) Yet, they have no problem providing their services to these people, like muslims or hindus or asthiests. SO WHY do they have a problem in doing so to gay people. renting a hall or extending health issurance to a same sex partner. is that too much!!! they are free to disagree with what people do , they don't have to discriminate though against them. so they are most welcome to stick to their principles, whether right or wrong as long it is not illegal.

When will the Roman Catholic Church and its top administrator the Pope start answering to their one, true boss, Jesus? The church was founded by Jesus and left in Peter's hands. It's time the RCC gave some truly deep concideration to the phrase that has been trivialized on billions of cheap bracelets and countless other gew-gaws the world over: What Would Jesus Do?

"Let's pretend that it's 1920 and we're talking about a Muslim organization. Suddenly the election laws gets changed to allow women to vote - but Muslims think women should be second-class citizens and only allowed to do what their husbands tell them to do and they will absolutely refuse to do any charity work in a place that gives women rights because it is against their religous beliefs. Would you side with the government or with the Muslims? " This is not a logical argument thats on point. In your scenario, the issues are unrelated. Voting rights and volunteer work at a charity organization are unrelated and the two issues would not be in conflict. So if Muslims decided not to do charity because of another issue wholly unrelated to their cause, they would be free to do so. The issue in the article is that the Church / Christians would have to directly provide social services in situations they morally oppose. The question you should be asking is why DC is relying on a religious group to manage its Charity organizations. In effect, DC is WAY in the wrong. If they cant manage their own charity organizations, they need to accept that they cant and accept there will be strings on Churches doing it for them, or pay for it to be done by ACORN or some other organization that would meet your approval - that way pimps could get tax advice.

RE:I don't think that's what Jesus meant by "going the extra mile." From what I remember of the Bible, it's been a while, Jesus never said anything about anything to do with ""going the extra mile" The 'church', any 'church' should stick to religion and leave the real world stuff to others. They don't give money to any government, so they haven't the right to interfere. At all!!

The Church just won -- for the moment, at least -- on its lobbying threat (yes, lobbying, and there's an issue!...) to kill health care reform for all America if the House of Representatives didn't pass an amendment denying legal, safe abortion coverage to low-income women: little wonder they thought taking on DC would be an easy one.

"What's next? The Catholic church will threaten to pull more services unless D.C. eliminates the sale of all contraceptives? Throws all women in leadership positions out of their jobs? Maybe the church will decide they won't give food to those who won't say they believe in transubstantiation and the infallibility of the pope? Posted by: veolaluzporfa" Yes, and God forbid, the DC government would have to do what they were actually elected to do instead of relying on volunteer work from Catholic charities and maintain seperation of Church and State, and then you could see how far your DC tax dollars are going.....

"The issue in the article is that the Church / Christians would have to directly provide social services in situations they morally oppose." What do they find morally objectionable about serving gay couples? They have no right to decide whether gays or anyone else should or shouldn't get married. They have the right to make that decision only for themselves as individuals and couples. Since neither homosexuality nor gay marriage inherently causes harm to others, what basis can anyone claim that these are immoral? The only standard for morality is whether something causes help or harm.

The Church just won -- for the moment, at least -- on its lobbying threat (yes, lobbying, and there's an issue!...)... Posted by: esthermiriam So you are okay with Muslim, GABL groups, foreign countries (like China and Iran), insurance industry, etc lobbying, but not the Catholic Church... Interesting. I wonder how many of the bigots here really know anything about Catholicism or just see it as the big Church thats easy to throw stones at because you have no real beliefs of your own, just counter beliefs. If you dont like what the Church is doing. GO VOLUNTEER AT A SOUP KITCHEN OR HOMELESS SHELTER. If you want the Church to do it for you, than shut up when they have conditions.

It is time for the District of Columbia and the various States to revoke property tax exemptions for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a large business that should be paying a fair share of property taxes.

While the church should have no obligation to marry same sex couples due to religous values, they would as an employer have to follow the law of honoring benefits to those employees effected. it's rather simple. Of course the church will express that they do not recognize such a marriage, however if the "state" does, they would need to as an employer.

The Church, the Pope, the Bishops, do not make public policy in the United States, nor presumably in Washington, D.C. either. My question is why they would so arrogantly presume that they can do so? In our world, there is genocide in Darfour, two vicious and unending wars in the middle east, an entire continent is drowning in AIDS, the Jews and Palestinians are locked in a mutually destructive death struggle in their unending internecine warfare, the planet is drowning in overpopulation and the effects of catastrophic global warming, the world economy is yet to fully recover, and indeed may never do so, and the best the Catholic Church can do in Washington is a brazen attempt at arm-twisting in order to force their parochial view about gays upon the city? Isn't this about as insane as watching the USCCB arm-twist Pelosi about the only thing worth the Church's attention nowadays, e.g., abortion? In the face of all of the enormous problems facing humanity, it seems that the Church is plunging headlong into utter irrelevance at the hands of a radical conservatism which comes from anywhere but from within the American Catholic community. That these clerics so badly mislead the American Church is astonishing, appalling, disheartening. Certainly the attitude of coercion and threat concerning social programs in DC is utterly anathema to the embracing, loving Gospel of Christ. Bishops? Remember Him?

The Catholic Church seems more like a political lobbying organization these days than a religious organization. Since when was opposing abortion, or gay marriage elevated to God's Supreme Law -- especially above tending to the neediest of the needy? I don't remember Jesus saying during his Sermon on the Mount: "Stone the gays! Kill the abortionists! And let the poor die first!"

How very pathetically sad of the Church. Jesus disagreed with the government of the Romans and still he encouraged his followers to feed and cloth the poor, including those that the religious majority considered to be Roman. His first commandment? Love one another. He often warned not to judge others but to worry about your own good deeds. I cannot believe the church is resorting to such tactics. I know I won't return to the Catholic Church until it chooses a leader more in line with Christ's teachings. Hate is not my family's value.

Reject government funds and retain your right to discriminate. It's not that hard.

Since the Catholics here refer to their history as a reason to decide as they have it is fair for an opponent to do the same. They imprisoned Galileo, they tortured Jews and others during the Inquisition. They massacred thousands of Jews and Arabs during the Crusades. This is the legacy of the Catholic Church. In my mind, they have disqualified themselves from any moral stature. Add in the organized effort to cover up the pedophilia by priests and you have the complete picture.

"What do they find morally objectionable about serving gay couples? They have no right to decide whether gays or anyone else should or shouldn't get married. They have the right to make that decision only for themselves as individuals and couples. Since neither homosexuality nor gay marriage inherently causes harm to others, what basis can anyone claim that these are immoral? The only standard for morality is whether something causes help or harm. Posted by: Carstonio" Thats YOUR standard for morality. What right do you have to IMPOSE your morality on the Church and Catholics? The Catholic Church has said if DC IMPOSES this condition on them, they will no longer administer the facilities. They arent IMPOSING their morality, they are refusing to have DC's social agenda IMPOSED on them. You want to force Catholics to work under conditions YOU want them to work under. You want to IMPOSE your beliefs on them. NO WHERE has the Catholic Church said they would IMPOSE Catholicism on anyone, they are simply refusing to have DC IMPOSE an agenda on them. Again, if you dont like it, fine. Keep your law and PAY someone to do what the Church is doing for free. AND By the way, I have yet to see where the Church is getting money for this service. They are MANAGING a service for DC. LIKELY they are doing it for free. From my perspective DC is making out on this deal and THAT is the reason why the Church is in a position it is. Namely, DC is managing its money poorly, mixed Church and state by having the RCC manage these facilities and now is trying to IMPOSE their agenda on the Church and is getting burned. Essentially, if you set up a soup kitchen that only served battered women in order to make them feel safe and provide an environment that was receptive to them, what if the building owner came in and said, NO, now that you are here, you have to serve men and women or get out. You started the kitchen under the terms you set out, than the bldg owner came in knowing you had done this and changes the rules because he wants to... Whats your position?

I am sure the church's theologians can get around this "principled" problem. If they need some brainpower that has worked in the past, apply some Jesuitically honed christian charity thinking. If all else fails, think politics as the church has done for centuries. Rome has been able to "accomodate" a lot. It beats counting the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin!

Its funny how easy people here are so willing to strip rights from others when it goes in line with what you believe. How will you feel when the barrel of the gun is turned on you as your rights are stripped because someone doesnt feel you are "moral." And before you say the RCC is doing that here. SHOW ME! They arent taking anyones rights away, they are refusing to have theirs taken. Im not making this argument for the RCC because I agree with their position on GLBT, Im doing it because DC IS WRONG FOR USING THE RCC TO RUN THEIR FACILITIES. DC IS WRONG FOR IMPOSING IT SOCIAL AGENDA ON THE RCC. And its a slippery slope to IMPOSING its social agenda on other businesses.

"In this case, for example, the church manages a number of city-owned homeless shelters." Maybe you all missed this line... If you dont like the church managing your shelters, it should with draw and than DC can raise YOUR taxes and pay for the administrative overhead that you get from the Church. I wonder how many people think it will be as efficient as the Church. Posted by: m052699 Actually mO52699 you missed the point of the line. These shelters are city shelters, OUR tax dollars pay the Archdiocese to run them for US. Do they do it cheaper than other charities? That would be interesting to find out. But have no illusions, many churches have good business plans and I doubt they're losing money on it. And yes, all churches should be taxed unless they give up political activism. As L Ron Hubbard proves "If you wanna get rich, start a religion".

Ah, bigotry against the Catholic Church is the only really accepted bigotry anymore, isn't it? So, in a quest for a few "spouses" to have health benefits, the gay lobby in DC will cut loose 70,000 people in need. Since most gays couples are above average in income and education, let's just cast this as what it is. It's selfish, narcissistic people climbing over the poor and downtrodden of DC in their quest for a few hundred dollars a month in health insurance and other benefits, all to try to convince themselves they really are normal. Classy.

Actually mO52699 you missed the point of the line. These shelters are city shelters, OUR tax dollars pay the Archdiocese to run them for US. Do they do it cheaper than other charities? That would be interesting to find out. But have no illusions, many churches have good business plans and I doubt they're losing money on it. And yes, all churches should be taxed unless they give up political activism. As L Ron Hubbard proves "If you wanna get rich, start a religion". Posted by: rachbrit1 I didnt miss the point, in fact that is my point. The RCC is running them FOR DC. DC knew the RCC position on these issues, accepted RCC management of the facilities and put them on contract (CLEAR VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE), and now changes the rules after the fact. Why not do this the legal way and wait for the contract to expire, why even have the RCC do it to begin with? I would like to see the books on this though. The author makes a lot of unfounded claims of money, as do most here. Someone needs to clearly show the money trail. Taxing Churches and Religion would actually be contradictory to your goal. It would eliminate smaller churches and belief systems. Large organized religions would be able to afford the taxes and be an even bigger player in politics as they could than way more heavily on elections etc without the restrictions they are under now. You would eventually be under a theocracy. Additionally, the RCC is also technically a government under certain situations and does pay some taxes. The Vatican City pays certain amounts of property taxes etc for their diplomats etc and lobbying. In effect, your "tax religions" policy would see the overwhelming increase in the RCC power as it is the only one with a "government".

What else would one expect from a group that got caught teaching Africans that condoms CAUSE AIDS.

If Oldiesfan1 is referring to my post, I would submit that all I have done is cite the truth. And given that, I find little if any reason not to express my distaste with these practices. They are no longer killing people but my distaste for everything the Catholic Church currently stands for remains unabated.

Your argument is dishonest. The Church would not be cutting off funding by walking away from the contract. Some secular organization would surely be able to step in and take over the burden.

What else would one expect from a group that got caught teaching Africans that condoms CAUSE AIDS. Posted by: jbg1 | November 12, 2009 5:12 PM Report Offensive Comment Proof? The only stories i have ever heard was that some were caught teaching condoms dont "prevent" AIDS, not that it causes. Show me a link or report your own post for offensive material.

Some really heavy anti-Catholicism throughout many of these comments. A sad commentary when the reaction to a simple proposition is so hateful. The main point is simply that the Archdiocese is informing the DC Government that it will have to find another agent to deliver the social services that the Church will no longer be able to deliver if the new rules are enacted. The Church is not withdrawing its support of efforts to aid the poor and homeless. It is merely notifying the local government that it will no longer be able to partner (no pun intended) with it. Betcha the Church stays actively engaged in helping the poor and homeless. The DC Government will have to find some other organization to help deliver the services currently delivered through the Church -- betcha a lot of organizations will sign up to play the role currently performed by the Catholic Church. On second thought, that's a big client base. Probably the DC Government will have to chop it up into a lot of smaller pieces. Or it could try to hire enough new employees to deliver the services itself. That'll be fun to watch!! Just what we need, thousands more municipal workers. I'm sure they'll be very sensitive to the plight of the poor and homeless.

--------

fr ccnl1:

>Hmmm, homosexual activity is more than a "philosophical disagreement". Once again, some "gay reality": The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community. " And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" ...

Quit spamming the board. You post this garbage pretty much on every single board that deals with Marriage EQUALITY.

Oh, and just a little fyi for you. I am a gay Christian woman who MARRIED my lovely wife last year. My MARRIAGE is legal, and valid. We keep God in the center of our MARRIAGE. Do YOU?

Catholic Charities is paid with your tax dollars to oversee the shelter program. If they don't do it, another non profit will get the contract. No matter what happens with gay marriage, the Catholic
Charities should loose the contract for DC services.

When Jack Kennedy ran for President, the fear mongers said that the Pope would be directing Government Policy. It did not happen then, it should not happen now.

The Catholic Church's anti-gay agenda has nothing to do with truth. Being gay is not a sin, it is not immoral, and gay people are not intrinsically disordered.

If the Catholic Church teaches these things, then the Catholic Church is teaching lies. This is not being anti-Catholic. I am not anti-Catholic and I do not hate Catholics. I feel sorry for their church which seeks to mislead them so.

The truth has to be said; it if is unpleasant, then perhaps we could put it under the category of "tough love." I think the DC City Council should pass a resolution condemning the Catholic Church for its un-ashamed agenda of homophobia.

On the subject of homosexuality, the Catholic Church is immoral. Government money really should not be given to this organization at all. If they cannot raise the money from Catholics, themselves, to do their work, and to promote their agenda of hate against gay people, then maybe that is a bigger probelm for them, that they should try to solve.

The Church is showing they no longer are doing God's work. After years of hearing the honor stories of how Priest molested kids, raped girls and have fathered children we are now to believe they are really teaching and following the orders of God? In 2001 the Church intered the White House and also became a business by investing, buying property to rent and donating to campagins. We saw a Priest who fell in love with a woman choose her over the church. We watched Priest deny a murdered gay young man who family donated to the Church all their lives as the Church refused to allow them to use the church for services. Looks like many from the Church wont be going to heaven either.

The Roman Catholic church has every right to opt out. I have that right also. That is why I am no longer a Roman Catholic. God bless the RCC for sticking to their position and God bless all those who understand that the RCC has become the 'exclusion' church and chosen to follow a different path.

"We can't compromise truth for anything else or we have nothing lasting to offer people. ... The Catholic Church ... needs to stick to their principles so they can make a real difference." Posted by: kert1
---

When Jesus discussed the virtues, HE said that the greatest was love. Truth? We should act like we hope we know the truth, not as if the truth is ours and ours alone.

It is perfectly consistent to say "we believe homosexual unions are disordered and against God's will, but we will help you care for your loved ones out of God's greater love and hope that someday you too will believe."

The root of the problem is the bishops are using a threat to force their policies on people who don't belong to their church. It lowers the Church to the status of just another political interest group.

Politicizing faith and church is bad for religion. It is a betrayal of the mission given by Jesus. Jesus sought to transform people's consciences and open their hearts. He didn't seek influence with politicians to change people's behavior by the force of law.

Nothing could be more un-Christian than this stance. Jesus didn't say "I don't like the Roman occupation, therefore I won't heal the lepers or feed the hungry." Just the opposite! Jesus did these things despite the secular government - and despite the collusion of the Jewish religious authorities with that secular government.

Revoke tax exemptions for religious institutions NOW!

It looks alot like the Catholic church is trying to influence the political process. Wouldn't that jeopardize their tax exempt status?

As the nephew of a priest who is formerly of the Archdiocese of Washington, I would like to clarify the Catholic Church's official position on homosexuality. Homosexual ACTS are sins, not being homosexual. This is because homosexual acts are sexual acts whose purpose is not procreation. Same reason the Catholic Church doesn't like contraception.

The phrase "Love thy neighbor" comes to mind. In spite of his sins or perhaps, because of them. That's what my uncle always taught me.

This is coming from the same church, who considers themselves a country, and who has been the cause of wars in numerous countries through the years, turned it's head to the Nazi's killing the Jews, the Inquisition, killing people who had a mole or birthmark while saying that made them a witch, responsible for deaths too numerous to mention worldwide, and allowing pedophile priests to continue their sick acts, while covering it all up?

Washington D.C is the federal governments base, and under such, the government is supposed to be separated from the church in its decisions. What the Catholic Church says shouldn't even be considered, and if they want to start playing politics, they should be taxed, thus making them not a church over their own acts.

It wouldn't break my heart to see the Catholic Church leave the U.S. for good in my opinion; good riddance. There are many other churches who practice their worship closer to what the Bible states than the Catholics ever have. Especially now that their threats against helping the needy shows everyone exactly what type of organization they really are.

Will Matney

The Catholic Church needs to worry about the MILLIONS of children who die each year of poverty. Young female children sold into sexual slavery, or married to old men. Females who are denied an education, and are denied any freedom of movement.
The Catholic Church should be asking America why it is allowing 1.5 million in Gaza to live in an open air prison camp.

It is amazing that the Church of Pedophilia has the gall to take the 'moral' high road and seek again to dictate policy.

Didn't a French philosopher make a wonderful suggestion some time back about Holy Mother The Church? (Some might question if she was holy or a Church anymore.) The suggestion was "Crush the infamy!"

"Herr Ratzinger",alias, Benedict,posing as "pope", former member of Nazi Hitler Youth, former member of the Nazi Wehrmacht army, DOES NOT REPRESENT JESUS,YESHUA, JEW,The King of Israel,The SON OF GOD of PEACE... One SHOULD expect duplicitous Nazi tactics from a "church" run by a Nazi,born & bred in Nazi Germany. The Roman Catholic church has gone to the dogs,run by filthy old perverts who take little boys into their locked seminaries -doing GOD knows what to them, they are greedy,evil hippocrites,practicing child molestation sex behind closed doors while pretending purity.
A top designer got a call in Manhattan from the Vatican-a Cardinal wants his Vatican palatial apartment re-done. The designer asked what the budget was? They told him "There is no limit whatsoever,the skies the limit,whatever his excellency desires." Stop the tax exemptions for these evil religions & get rid of the DEFICIT!!!

Benedict...Ratzinger....THE SOUP NAZI is shutting out the hungry, the poor, the homeless, the unaccepables, the "UNTERMENSCHEN" the subhuman,this
Pope Nazi

The U.S Taxpayer Supported
Roman Catholic Church,through "your" GENEROUS TAX EXEMPTIONS

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of D.C.

301-853-4500

This so-called church shows again that it is far more interested in its irrational dogma than it is in real human beings. Because of its dogma concerning abortion, is has worked to block health care reform so that tens of thousands can continue to die needlessly each year because of lack of insurance. This is its right to life. Now it is prepared to abandon the mission to the poor reflecting the teaching of Christ in favor of its its dogma concerning abortion which appears nowhere in the teaching of Christ. The teachings of Christ seem to have little to do with the actions of this so-called church.

Fair enough. In response, let the Federal and State Governments take away all their tax exemptions. We could use the revenue.

The next-to-last sentence of my previous post should have read "dogma concerning homosexuality". Sorry.

The Catholic Church doesn't pay any taxes but tries to bully the rest of the country that is not Catholic.

I think that government should call the Catholic Church's bluff and let the voters see just how hypocritical and low they really are.

Then, if they keep up their involvement in politics, Revoke Their Tax Exempt Status
and go for 20-30 years of back taxes.

I am sure Lutheran Social Services will be glad to take over that contract. In this economy it is a very un Christian thing to do...threaten the welfare of thousands to make a point that is clearly out of bounds. I wish the church would have had the moral fortitude to defrock priests ( and bring them to justice) who abused not once but many times. Instead they moved them, hide them and never punished them until more and more victims brought their sins into the light of day.

Where was the outrage then? I am sorry to see my church go in this direction. Hate the sin love the sinner. I do not agree with many laws passed but if they are passed they become the law of the land. To take away your care from thousands of needy families and kids just is wrong wrong wrong on every level.

Maybe we should go back to all the Catholics being in Maryland.

I still don't understand the special power granted a FOREIGN ENTITY, indeed a country, in the United States of America.

How is it that the Romans have actually determined major elements of health care reform?

How is it that the Romans' pope is consulted on matter such as stem cell research?

How is it that the Romans have agents all over the US lobbying the Congress, while also benefiting from nonprofit status?

The Church has never made a secret of its objections to same sex marriage. This slippery slope (i.e. we'll let you stay and help our homeless but you'll have to make your facilities available to celebrate same sex unions) is exactly what Catholics have been fearing. Once we make our church halls available to homosexual couples, pro-abortion groups, and others whose views are in disagreement with the Church, then legislators and others will begin to demand that marriages take place there, as well. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The D.C. Government can't have it both ways; if it wants the Church to remain and help it deal with its indigent, then it will have to do more to protect the Church and its beliefs. Otherwise, it'll be the D.C. Government, not the Vatican, that kills the golden goose.

Well if the Catholic Church believes that gay marriage is "socially evil" then it is operating on a delusional basis and deserves to die out. The evil cannot be demonstrated, the judgment cannot be justified, it's nothing more than squeamishness and bigotry. If the church would rather remain "pure" and irrelevant it can join the Republican Party on the ash heap of history.

Call their bluff.

The Catholic church takes one more purposeful stride down the road toward irrelevance. What is the matter with these people? Why can they not wake up and see the world as it is rather than as our nomadic forebears saw it 1700 years ago? Much has changed. Please, Catholics, join the 21st century, we need you.

What do you expect of organizations ruled by Dark Ages dogma and witchcraft (wafers turning into Jesus' flesh, and wine into his blood, ghosts, exorcism and many other absolutely stupid notions)?

To believe that sex is only for procreation is just NUTTY. An idiot attitude like that comes maybe from some long-dead era of tribes who were in endless competition with other tribes and only one bad year away from dying out.

We have opposite problems now.

Anyone encouraging anyone else to breed deserves to be horsewhipped.

Perhaps we should give the Catholic church a break. They are slow to change. In 1610, the Inquisition persecuted Galileo for publishing that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth revolved around it.

In 1979, at the Pope's direction, the Catholic church re-visited the case. In 1992, they acknowledged that errors in persecuting Galileo were made.

As you can see, they apparently have a tremendous amount of red tape and bureaucracy to work through.

And we thought Congress was slow to change!

No they don't deserve a break. The Catholic Church wants to adhere to the attitudes from an age of intolerance and to pretend that the social progress of the last two thousand years didn't happen.

Women can vote now, blacks can have jobs, gays are no more immoral than anyone else. Don't like it? Go extinct.

"What right do you have to IMPOSE your morality on the Church and Catholics? "

This isn't about Catholicism or even Christianity, but about any claim from anyone that gay couples don't deserve the same treatment as straight couples. Religious freedom is about the beliefs one has for one's private life and the decisions one makes for that life. Religious freedom is NOT about choosing to treat others differently because one doesn't like how they live their private lives. This issue is really about personal interaction, not about private belief. If the Archdiocese refused to provide benefits to, say, Jewish or Muslim couples, even other Catholics would rightly call that discrimination. Discrimination based on orientation is NO different than discrimination based on any other characteristic.

" Members of our tradition were early advocates of abolition of slavery and today are supporters of our Gay and Lesbian brethren."

Nice to know that there is such a thing as a lesbian brother! :)

This is disgusting. Its blackmail, the church should be ashamed of itself

Now that's the European colonial influence we all can understand. The Vatican as a political fact, threatening the withdrawl of Christian charity to its subservient colonials. Now that this process has been revealed, maybe we can show African American Muslims how colonizing Arab Muslims were (and are) slavers.
European fascism works so often on so many levels...

Farnaz

The Catholic Church is not really a "foreign" country. The Italian government allows the Vatican to pretend that it is a sovereign state. The modern Italian state, to its credit, cradles the Vatican in its benevolent care. It is a remnant of Medieval times, much like the British Monarchy, that the Italian government considers worth preserving.

I think considering this real nature of the Vatican, that it only exists at all, due to the benevolence of a modern secular state, that the Catholic Church and Catholics in general are a little pushy, and even ungrateful at the special prviliges that they maintain in our own country, not the least of which is their dominance of the Supreme Court.

Yet, if I or anyone says anything critical about them at all, I am automatically called a Catholic-basher, as though they could not possibly imagine anyone bashing an outcast group, despite the the relentless and unending drumbeat of gay bashing promoted by the Pope, his army of closetted gay clergy, and the Catholic theology, marinated for a thousand years in antequated, Medeival homophobia.

Gasp!!!!

Not to worry, the services to the poor will continue without the Catholic Church. There will be long lines of other religious organizations carrying buckets to scoop up the money and run with it. The Catholic Church won't be missed a bit.

Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Besides, charity was once something made through sacrific, not something one was paid to do.

Hmmm, homosexual activity is more than a "philosophical disagreement".

Once again, some "gay reality":

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong.

Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community. " And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research??

Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation. And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

From Wikipedia: "Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2]

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

Church haters should make up their minds: are you criticizing the Church for taking public money to serve the poor or for refusing to provide any longer low-cost volunteer-based support to city-owned facilities that help the poor. If the Church is making money, it is not helping and you should be happy to see it go away. If the Church is providing services that save the city money, the Church is not benefiting from the public purse. You can whine about one scenario or the other, not both.

Blackmail is a dirty word, but, that is what we have here. What room does the Church have to threaten the lives of thousands with a cut off of aid with their past history of damage done to hundreds
of young boys, the bankruptcy of churches, and all the money spent on fees, they don't. Perhaps now is the time for Congress to
act to enforce our Constitution on the separation of church and
state by revoking the tax free status of all churches that threaten
or interfere with the running of government. What would"THE MAN
UPSTAIRS" say to this, Is it his love????

"This makes me embarrassed to be a Catholic. Fine, don’t marry gay couples. But you want SO BADLY to be able to openly discriminate against them for something they do in their private lives that you are willing to let tens of thousands of people suffer? That is unforgivable. I encourage all Catholics who actually care about helping others more than worrying about what a gay person does in their own home to call the Archdiocese of DC and tell them what you think! 301-853-4500"

And I encourage you, oh disgruntled and liberal 'catholic', to examine your faith that you may understand from what basis the Church has made its decision. The Church will not condone activity contrary to the Truth that is the basis of our Faith, and the Church is in no way turning its back on the poor, so much as the government of DC is forcing the Church somewhere it won't compromise its values on.

As to the issue of the Church 'disgriminating' and 'hating' gays and lesbians, nothing could be farther from the truth, Mother Teresa opened one of the first AIDs clinics at the outbreak of of the virus to treat anyone in need, almost all of whom were homosexuals. No true Catholic 'hates' homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. We hate the sins they commit, and pray that they might see the error in their ways. We even pray for those like you, who are so ready to bash the Church, but not take the time to understand what it is all about.

As to the Church's 'hiding of pedophile priests' and 'condoning the sexual abuse of minors', I feel sorry for you that you have allowed yourself to become so entranced and made gullible by liberal media. Did a few priests commit sexual atrocities? Yes, sadly and tragically they did. However, Pope JP II and the rest of the Church devoted a ton of time and effort, and rightly so, to try and ammend for these actions. We also, since we still don't hate anyone, tried to re-educate the priests and bring them back into God's love. And before you say it, The Church doesn't hate the homosexual community because they won't accept a government law that compromises their values, they care for homosexuals and all others out of love and hope that they might one day change, and will continue to care for those in need (as they have done for more than 2000 years), but not at the cost of compromising those very teachings that make up the Faith.

For all the liberal Catholics out there (i.e. not Catholics), the Church is not going to change its fundemental teachings which it believes to be Truth based on the fact that it isn't popular with today's pleasure and hate-filled society. The fact that many Catholics have left the faith because they either didn't know or didn't accept what the Church really is, is a very sad one indeed, but not one that changes what is true and what is not. The faith isn't a popularity contest.

Please don't embarass real Catholics by claiming that you are one right before you bash the Church.

BTW, does anyone else find it ironic that this column called 'On Faith' does little more than attack the Church and its teachings?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/telnaes/telnaescomments11132009.html

er moreso: http://www.cavcomics.com/raskol/?id=11

It is important to note that Wikipedia is not nor will it ever be a professional source for information in its current format.

For some reason this post holds certain comments for review.

DITLD,

The Vatican has an ambassador to the UN, no doubt, to keep track of international gay romance.

I was born and raises Catholic, went to Catholic schools K-12. My Church has certainly changed, and not for the better, since my school days.

The one thing I would LOVE, is if someone could quote for me any line in the NEW Testament where JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD says that homosexuals are evil and we must discriminate against them to save all of humanity. It seems to me that homosexuals just might be our Samaritans.

And this seems like a perfect situation to ask ourselves, "what would Jesus do?"

Jesus wouldn't exclude anyone. If we are to believe the Bible, he never did.

Jesus certainly wouldn't stop providing assistance to the needy out of spite. In fact, I don't think there is any reason that Jesus would have stopped helping the needy.

No, the Catholic Church is once again going against the teachings of Jesus in favor of their own deeply flawed bias.

But hey, they just changed the rules of the Church so they could gain the membership of people who are anti-gay and anti-women. Should any of us expect anything more from this severely disfunctional institution? I am ashamed to be affiliated with this Catholic Church.

The money the church saves by discontinuing its social welfare programs would be very well used to pay taxes. Since they no longer chose to help they should pay their fair share for the services they receive as benefit from the District.

Do the righteous Bishops know what heterosexuals are doing in their bedrooms?
Do they look into our windows to make sure we are only using sex for procreation and not for pleasure? And are they throwing out those Catholics who are doing wayyyy
many acts that are not considered normal?
What do they base their judgment of us on?
Will they go after heterosexual acts that displease them and will they tell just what they are?
The church does not pay for their privilege of living and working and operating their religious corporations here in America and yet our taxes pay for their security and safety. We ask nothing from them, yet they expect us to follow their tenets, written by men not Jesus.
They are willing to take government money and do not oppose it when given, even in light of our war of aggression in Iraq and the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people at our hands. We never hear the Bishops rail about the thousands of immoral and nefarious politicians throughout our nation's history, but homosexual marriage really bothers them.
I think the Catholic Church should just shut their mouths and worry about their own sexually immoral members whom they have had no problem in hiding and lying for. D.C. should just tell the Bishop fuggetaboutit. We don't need you. There are lots of citizen run organizations who are willing to live as Christ's wants us to and they are feeding and sheltering the poor better than the churches have ever done. The Catholic Church is today a dying entity because it has totally turned away from God's neediest and turned themselves toward the rich and powerful. When's the last time anyone has known of the church going to bat for the poorest of the poor? fritz

Greenbow

Don't you DARE play the Catholic bashing card until you stop bashing gays.

Personal bigotry is not the same as religious belief. And as for the truth of your beliefs, well, since you brought it up, I feel it would be wrong of me not to reply that "your truth" is really a lie, that you are being deceived about gay people, that gay people are not sinners, not bad, not disordered, not ill. Your persistence in spreading this false doctrine invites a retort, which you call "Catholic bashing" but which I call tough love.

Catholic gay bashing is childish and silly, and underminses all the credibility of Roman Catholicism. Clinging to this antiquated bigotry merely sinks the whole operation deeper and deeper into mud.

That is the truth; that is a fact; and no Catholic theologian can bully their way around it.

More and more it seems conservative "Christian" groups are faced with weighing their dearly coveted bigotry against the fading, weak pull of what Jesus preached in the New Testament. Regularly now they are deciding that their bigotry is far more important to them.

It's time to strip this institution of the tax exempt status it is abusing daily on such a grand scale. The Catholic Church has ceased to be a religious organization and is nothing but a political action apparatus for the far right.

And they just despise Jesus anymore. It is so sad. I used to at least find some genuine goodness in Catholicism. It is dead.

blah blah blah look at all the crap written here, you all have such great empathy for the poor and needy why dont you get up off your overweight a***s and do something about it, its been said that poverty isnt needed but thanks to the new values such as greed and avarice and self serving attitudes its alive and well, so go ahead and bag the church who gives a s**t but when you are hunting through your little dictionaries, thesaurus and other books to add I.Q points so you can write witty anti-religious anecdotes, take time out to look in the mirror and stare at the real problem, it isnt the church and we all know it, but gosh its nice to offload guilt onto someone or something else.
Of course the catholic church is a political organisation you idiots how else do you think it could possibly survive under the constant barrage of idiocy such as that displayed on this page. Their ideas may very well be antiquated and make them easy targetsfor any moron who prayed for something and didnt get it delivered by Fedex the next day, and their doctrine of educating people to maintain values per se isnt really popular anymore, yep there is obviously no need for them to try and desperately instill values in people any more right, I mean theres no longer any poverty, unemployment, murder, child abuse,starvation, war etcetera etcetera ha ha ha ha wow people are really doing so well under the new liberal flagship...the current state of this whole world is related to a total lack of values and it has nothing to do with religion, but at least there are some organisations still attempting to hold things together, by the way the biggest proponents to the gay way of life is not the catholic church, its just that they are the only ones with guts enough to step over politically correct boundaries, on not only numerous issues, however they only get bagged on the issues we are brainwashed to believe----dont go there!!!. One last thing, sorry for this I am bored its the only reason to bother writing, some of the most learned men/women in the wrold are members of the Archdiocese, Physicists,Astronomers, Theologians etcetera, so please get over your antiquated ideas of dummies in robes blindly pushing an outdated product

@ JoeSchmoe06: It is YOUR logic Joe, that is faulty. The city is not forcing the church to do anything. The city is doing what cities must by law do, adjusting it's behavior according the foundational laws it is designed to function within, while the church may be doing the same, the church alone has the choice to work to continue to do good. The city can't arbitrarily decide to spend my tax dollars to support the church and it's works while the church discriminates against my tax paying brethren citizens. The church on the other hand, if it wants not to die in obscurity, would do well to check in with it's citizenry. The people who give to the church do so in spite of it's outmoded "moral" code, not because of it, I know, I was one of those people. All philosophical arguments aside, the choice to allow millions to die to save one life is NOT a moral choice. Just as the choice to allow thousands to suffer in order stop a few from finding a happiness you disavow is NOT a moral choice. Gay marriage hurts no one, homelessness and hunger hurt everyone...

All the morons who want to tax the church because it doesn't want to recognize gay marriage ought to remember the first few words of the 1st Amendment -- "Congress shall make no law." No, we should recall, means no.

The Church certainly does sincerely care about the pre-molested.

Jesus had a problem with people who felt that religious property could be secularized. He physically threw out the money changers from the temple. The church today must do the same. While Jesus broke bread with tax collectors, protected adulterers and forgave prostitutes, he did not embrace or tolerate their lifestyles. He was here to create change - to tear brother from sister - as he stated. Do not think that the church today should do anything different from the One that still leads their body.

The Church has every right to its beliefs. However, the social services it provides are funded, in large part, by public tax dollars. It's not unreasonable to require the Church to render unto Caesar when it's taking Caesar's dime.

Call their bluff. If they end their support for all of these charities, other non-profits and churches will eventually step-in, but the church loses one of its appeals for money.

Are you kidding me ? "Rent the church hall to gay and lesbian groups" --- "force open adoptions to gay and lesbian couples" ???? And your having trouble seeing where they have a problem with this ??

I dont often agree with the Catholic Church, but I applaud them in this instance.

What gets me is that people who dont read the Bible or believe in any of the teachings -love to throw out the " gospel imperative to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the disadvantaged" ---- hello ? the gospel ( which means good news, and makes no sense without understanding the bad news that God hates sin and is going to judge the world in righteousness - the Gospel is that if you repent of your sins and put your faith for forgiveness in what Jesus did on the cross, you can be forgiven on that day of judgment. ) The real Gospel imperitive to preach repentance and faith. This is eternal, not just temporal. the writer of this article says 'I don't think that's what Jesus meant by "going the extra mile."' - maybe you could tell me what you think Jesus meant by saying "unless you repent, you will likewise perish?" .

You want the church to ignore peoples real need - which is eternal, and just help peoples temporary needs. Thats like telling a hospital to stop telling people mean things like they have cancer and just keep putting on band-aids.

Good riddance, I'm sick of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and many other mainline denominations. What an unChristian and mean spirited postion to take.

Someone asked what would Jesus do. Someone else asked Jesus said about gays.

Well, he reiterated the Genesis story and talked of a man leaving his mother and father to join a woman and become one flesh. So, no room there for a man and a man or a woman and a woman. To say that we know more about gay relationships now and that they are somehow equivalent to straight relationships is to say that you know more now than God did then. That's really funny!

As to what would Jesus do? He would invite Adam and Steve to dinner with the rest of us sinners and tell them to sin no more.

Just yank the tax exempt status of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Catholic Corporation of America LLC,) and treat them like the corporation that they are. I'm sure that the revenue generated would fund plenty of public services for the District.

I'm afraid this is neither unexpected or consistent. It's not unexpected because the House of Representatives effectively just taught the Catholic Church that the "I'm taking my ball and going home," strategy is effective in getting political concessions, with the health care shuffle. It's not consistent, as someone else pointed out, because the Church as made it's peace with divorce, unwed opposite-sex co-habitation and other "lifestyle" issues it has issues with.

Also those who see this as the government imposing it's controls on an independent, religious organization, you understand that the issue is the Catholic church taking governmental money to perform their good works, don't you? They are free to place any restrictions they choose on their charity, as long as they don't do it on the taxpayer's dime. I understand you don't want your tax money going to what you view as the mortal sin of abortion. Do you understand many people (including gay people) don't want their tax money going to commit discrimination or feed bigotry?

Kow-tow to our view of the world or we will use the tax laws to distroy the church, how liberal, tolerant and undestanding of the other. Henry the VIII would be proud of self rightious W-P readers.

"Out-dated moral values", really? Not sure how much logic or ethics you take, but what is true is true, and doens't change due to the degridation of society. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, but the Church does, and won't change those beliefs because the immoral want acceptance. The Church didn't change its view on divorce, even though it meant the separation of the Anglicans under Henry VIII, for the same reason, because what it believes to be true is timeless.

"You hate women and gays" again, really? Not sure if you all know this, but the most respected human after Jesus himself was his mother, Mary. Just because we don't have women as priests because it is against the Sacred Traditions of the faith, doesn't mean we hate women. Men are not equal to women, nor are women equal to men, they are different in their own rights, and have different rolls in life. That's like a man saying, "hey, I think men should have babies, because it's not fair that only women can." That's not what men were designed for, we can no more have a baby than a woman be a priest, just the laws of nature as we see it. However, that in no way means that women are subservient to men, a priest is equally valued in the Catholic community as any woman, and if it is the female's calling to give their life fully in service, there is the sisterhood. Don't know how else I can explain how Catholics don't hate gays, we belive they are living in mortal sin, but we don't hate them and have treated and cared for them for years.

"Show me proof that Jesus didn't approve of homosexuality" Every reference to the sacred union of marriage is done with the intention of procreation, for the gift of life was given to us that we might glorify him that made us. Homosexual 'sex' is nothing more than mutual masturbation, and therefore a sin, and is equally as sinful as two hetrosexual partners doing the same thing.

BTW, maybe we should tax the Jewish community because they don't support our nation's pig farmers, or the Muslim community because they don't eat much during Ramadan.

Also, the Church hasn't 'made its peace with divorce and other sexual sins' we find them just as much attrocities as we always have, and deal with them the same way. What you think the Church teaches is a result of what society tells you, and because the media chooses to cover the Church's disagreements with homosexuality more than others, that's what you see, and you incorrectly assume that we magically found the other offenses acceptable behavior.

The Catholic church is living up to his reputation of denying benefits. This has nothing to do with them trying to say its a "moral" issue. Once again they pick and choose what parts of the Bible they believe in.

This threat by the Catholic Curch is the most un-Christian thing they can do.

Doesn't the Bible say feed the hungry, clothe the poor and heal the sick?

What's that got to do with abortion.

Considering the Church's own problems with child abuse by priests, perhaps they should just shut up and do the Bible's bidding.

Oh I forgot, organized religion has little to do with folowing the preceipts of it's faith, it's about getting and keeping power and about forcing a particular belief system on everyone else.

I think too many people rush to judgment on this without digging deeper including the writer in this case.

The Church runs some city sites, the sites are funded by both the city and the Church who puts 10 million of its own money into the system; the Church is not taking government funds for the Church.

The Church is simply stating under these conditions they cannot work hand in hand with the DC government any longer; nothing says they are not going to just move to a fully private operation. I doubt the Church who is the #1 world provider of charity is going to stop helping only change venue.

I am an atheist and frankly I am sick of seeing the Church getting attacked. You people bite the hand the feeds you literally. No matter how much they do you just criticize; what have you done for the poor lately? Those in glass houses and all that.

This is tantamount to a toddler holding his breath until he gets what he wants.

How utterly UN-Christian of the Catholic Church! Revoke their tax-exempt status and we'll see what happens then! They should have absolutely no say whatsoever in government affairs.

The mighty archdiocese of Washington DC has announced it will cease offering social services to over 70,000 DC residents (about 1/3 of which are homeless) if the DC government allows same sex marriage.

This is from the same group that has spend decades covering up same sex molestations of young boys by priests. If priests can have same sex sex shouldn't it be okay for some to engange in same sex marriage?

Apparently not.

So if the big kid on the social services block can't get it's way, it's going to take its toys and go home, leaving 70,000 poor people hungry, homeless, sick and ill clothed.

This threat by the Catholic Curch is the most un-Christian thing they can do.

Doesn't the Bible say feed the hungry, clothe the poor and heal the sick?

I guess that part of the Bible isn't in the DC Catholic Diocese's version.

The Bible also says be compassionate - another tenan t of thei rfaitht eh DC Diocese is willing to toss out the window.

As this latest anti Christian move by the Catholic Church shows us once again, organized religion has little to do with folowing the preceipts of it's faith, it's about getting and keeping power and about forcing a particular belief system on everyone else no matter who it hurts in the process.

Here's what is happening - the Catholic Church is simply becoming a secularized and politicized version of itself in order to influence legislative outcomes. Of course they need to lose their tax exempt status post haste - as do all religious organizations/affiliates.

This unsubtle conversion process is apparently beyond the ken of both the Bishopric and the Vatican. The civil issues of abortion rights and gay marriage rights have become the locus of a 'demonically inspired' battle royale - how very Middle Ages!

Meanwhile, petulant threats to withhold services to the poor are beyond demeaning, but nevertheless put the Church in a proper perspective......a theologically inspired deux ex machina deluxe with politically inspired flames and pinstripes along the side panels.

Posted by Alex511, in response to CCNL1,

"Quit spamming the board. You post this garbage pretty much on every single board that deals with Marriage EQUALITY."

Akex511, I have a theroy about that. I think CCNL1 is in actuality a computer program, coded to spit up a specific pre-generated cut-and-paste "response" to certian code-words. I'll bet some programmer somewher wrote "him" as a way to test some aspects of search and recognition protocols that are in development. Hey, it makes as much sense as most of CCNL1's posts:)

"Also, the Church hasn't 'made its peace with divorce and other sexual sins' we find them just as much atrocities as we always have, and deal with them the same way. "
Posted by Greenbow

You may feel that way, Greenbow, but your church doesn't appear to make the same fuss over other "sexual sins" that it applies to gay marriage. You're correct in that it used to react much more strongly about such things, (to the point of execution.) It has learned (as have others) to adapt to a secular culture that won't stand for such things, and to the lack of secular power to take such actions. Even the most radical Catholic cleric these days would not call for the death penalty for adultery. Change can be positive. Denying that something has ever changed is just foolish.

The Catholic Church in the not too distant past used to fire its teachers and other employees who divorced. The priests used to counsel against divorce for any reason, even spousal abuse or alcoholism. The bishops finally woke up on this.
More recently they have denounced birth control as an
"intrinsic evil". It is interesting that they are not waging a war against all the coupes using birth control, or else the churches would be even emptier.
The Catholic Church is asking for funds that are public, contributed in part by the very people against whom they wish to discriminate.
Why is the sky going to fall so drastically in Washington DC with gay marriage, but the Catholics have not had ill effects in other states where it exists? OK, they voluntarily quit the adoption business in Massachusetts, but they could have stayed if they wanted to. Here in DC, gays and lesbians adopted 25% of all kids last year. I hope that the church is not going to argue that the adopted kids are better off living like Oliver Twist in an orphanage.
Here in the District of Columbia, the Catholic hierarchy insisted that Georgetown University, a Catholic affiliated institution, ban a gay organization in 1983. However, the students fought back, taking the case to court with the assistance of young feisty lawyers (some trained at Georgetown).
The Catholic Church lost, and was ordered to pay huge legal fees to these lawyers who helped the students. After this situation, the Catholic bishops could have declined all the public money that the university receives, and operated like a Catholic Bob Jones University. However, it learned that the brighter students in America are not fans of discrimination, and now today, there is a special lesbian and gay student center on campus. Well, the inviolable doctrines that were invoked by the bishops in 1983 just don't seem to bother the bishops today.
Churches seem to become more desperate for public funding as their memberships and donations decline, and the general membership becomes aged. In the lifetimes of younger Catholics, the institution will become mostly a Hispanic institution, due to immigration, and the exodus of educated former Catholics who are not feeling bound by antidemocratic authoritarian practices. Vatican II was supposed to change all this. However, there has been a counter-revolution that has decided that it is comfortable with driving out all but the fundamentalists who are willing to pay up, and not ask too many questions.

We should not be surprised that this church, the Catholic Church, is opposed to this. After all, they still do not ordain women as priests/ministers, or allow priests to marry. Many other churches do not follow these restrictive dictates or interpretations of the Bible.

In fact, some Jewish organizations (think old testatment laws and interpretation) and other churches are not opposed to gay marriage. They actually support it.

Reiteration is a great education tool and also necessary for soul cleansing.

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex?

Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

"Suppose you say to an orthodox Jew, "You can only help the poor if you eat pork" and then when she says she cannot, will you say to her, "I see, you don't care about the poor." Maybe if YOU cared about the poor you would not impose such preconditions on Jews"

Too bad nobody teaches logic anymore. This would be a good analogy if it mirrored the facts of the case. this is not a case of the CC being forced to "eat pork". This is a case of the CC refusing service to those who "eat pork". The fact that Jesus chose to eat with sinners is for a different argument.

"Reiteration is a great education tool and also necessary for soul cleansing."
Posted by CCNL1

It's also rude and annoying. In a lecture setting, where student's grades depend on memorizing and parroting the instructor's lecture, it can be a learning tool, but in a conversational setting, such as a blog, it's just obnoxious.

Good manners (and fresh information) cost nothing. If you can't come up with new actual data, please, at least try paraphrasing. Otherwise, when people see your handle, they will just skim on by. I know I often do.

Just a tip. If you really think you have good ideas to offer to the conversation, it's in your best interest to try to be interesting.

The Catholics are afraid of their own edicts evidently. Did it not say in the Bible for everyone to obey the laws of the land? Did not Jesus himself instruct his followers to do this?

If our government passes any law, it is the churches responsibility to follow and obey the law of the land.

Now, someone above tried to say that there were only a few priests found to be pedophiles, however, that was all that were caught. How many others have they hid? Why not break open the archives at the Vatican, and let anyone that wants read what they store? The reason is simple, they know they'd be busted as the fraud that they are. They know that all their hidden secrets of murder, fraud, theft, and deceit would be discovered.

How about the Catholic Church start spying on its own followers bedrooms? How many cases of sodomy do you think they would discover? How about spying on the priests and the nuns? How many orphans have they procreated?

The Mason's separated from the Catholic Church, and refused to build anymore cathedrals over the Catholic Church starting to practice idolatry. That being when they started to bow and worship Mary, instead of Jesus and God himself. Also, let's not forget what happened to the Knights Templar, and Jacques DeMolay.

After all of this though, they have the gall to point a finger at anyone and try to bully them into their beliefs? They wonder why Protestants exist? Because the Catholic Church chose to hide what the Bible said from the people, until the likes of Martin Luther started the revolution, or the Huguenots started their movement, and exposed the Catholics as early as the 1400's.

There's plenty of churches in the U.S. that worship as close to the Bible as possible, and come way closer to it than the Catholics ever did. I myself am a Protestant, and I have studied the the difference between the churches. Since I know this, I know that there are plenty of other churches that would be glad to take over this responsibility from the Catholics, and see to the poor, in probably a better manner than they are now.

'Here in DC, gays and lesbians adopted 25% of all kids last year. I hope that the church is not going to argue that the adopted kids are better off living like Oliver Twist in an orphanage.'
Actually, we would, and here's why: since we belive acting on your homosexuality (notice I didn't say being a homosexual) is a grave mortal sin, akin to that of murder and adulty, it would be better for the kids to live in an orphanage than to have their eternal souls put in jeaproday. Whether you agree with the Church or not, that is the standpoint for this decision.

'One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.'
Wrong again, just because you have a hormone imbalance that makes you a homosexual, doesn't mean that you have to act on it, much like someone who has two Y chromosomes is prone to severe violence because of an overproduction of the hormone testosterone. Everyone was given a challenge in this life that they have to deal with. There are plenty of good Catholics that are homosexuals, but do not act on their homosexuality out of a knowledge and acceptance for this challenge. Now I know your next argument is going to be, 'but everyone has a right to be happy, who is the Church to say what people do in the bedroom as long as it doesn't hurt anyone', but you would make that claim on the assumption that acting on one's homosexuality is not harmful; it is. It not only puts the souls of those involved in jeopardy, but also those of others exposed to the sin, tempting them to accept it. Again, you obviously don't agree that acting on gayness is a sin, but the Church does, always has, and always will, and from this belief does it act in DC, thus even detatched from religion, they act logically in DC.

And for all of you out there throwing the Bible's teaching of clothing the naked and feeding the hungry, the Church will in no way stop doing this. It might retire from the public sector in DC because it won't compromise its values, but I have no doubt that there will still be a vibrant Catholic charity life privatly in the city. The over $10 million of its own money that it has been freely giving to the system, it will simply re-direct to private charities throughout the city.

What sane person would engage in passing some foolish test - in order to do good, you must compromise your values. You can distribute food to the homeless if you cosign on immorality. It's not the church that's in the wrong her.

Complicated?

Complicated?

Look, either the Arch Diocese wants to help people or not. This is a very un-Christian approach to their issue.

I am so not regretting leaving the Church I was raised in –– at all.

'The Catholics are afraid of their own edicts evidently. Did it not say in the Bible for everyone to obey the laws of the land? Did not Jesus himself instruct his followers to do this?'

True enough, but he didn't instruct that the Church would compromise its own values for the law. Moral law supersedes public law. Now, in manners not related to faith, yes the Church is to follow the law, but when a contradicition arises, the Church is always to revert to Jesus' teachings and the Truth.

The Church will continue to serve the needs of the poor, neglected and all of God's children.
The 'ultimatum' is rather the promise that the Catholic Church will not obey by the District's gay marriage law even at the risk of being decertified by the District and its social service agencies.
The question is does the District wish to lose that partnership, and the over $10 million - far more than the $8 public dollars in grants - in matching funds that the Archdiocese spends on these District-monitored programs.
Should they refuse, the Church will continue to serve the community within their own belief structure, which doesn't include proselytizing, and the District will lose necessary social service programs that they and most of their remaining partners are unable, particularly financially, to run and support.

'Complicated?
Complicated?
Look, either the Arch Diocese wants to help people or not. This is a very un-Christian approach to their issue.
I am so not regretting leaving the Church I was raised in –– at all.'

Everyone here presuposes the Church will in some way stop helping those in need, nothing is farther from the truth. It will continue to do so, just no longer under the local DC government.

"The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Why?

Isn't your mission supposed to be to feed, clothe, and shelter those in need no matter their faith or their origins?

Isn't the whole point to bring God's example to bear in caring for "the least among us"? To serve humanity without prejudice?

Where is the clause that says, "Unless the servant or the homeless person is gay"?

The Catholics have an interesting way of looking at service: what's good for their pockets is good for your soul. This explains the whole "suffering brings you closer to God" routine, which allows the church to ignore or dismiss the soul-destroying experiences of molested children until their plight could no longer be hidden.

It also explains why Mother Teresa ministered to the dying poor in Calcutta with prayer but no medication. Those millions of suffering, dying Indians were comforted not with pain relievers and nourishment but with assurances that their suffering was holy.

The Catholic bishops in this country apparently see themselves as political players and, consequently, have demanded a seat at the negotiating table. They don't belong there.

Whatever happened to the humility that was supposed to be so much a part of Catholic belief and practice? Seems that it applies to the rank-and-file but not to the male muckety-mucks.

For those that missed it in recent news reports, the Church is now 100% behind SETI type explorations into the possibility of alien life forms - is this finally a nod to the long-ago incarcerated 'heretic' Galileo, or a sign of deperate times as regards potential Catholic converts (if the Anglican thing doesn't work out)??

My best guess in regard to intelligent ETs and possible future Church affiliations - they've been there and done that, eons ago.

Those biblical greener pastures, calculated now in light years, are beginning to throw suspicion on the smallness and inadequacy of many religious cosmologies/theologies - just one more thing for the CC to worry about.

What would Teilhard de Chardin say??

The Church always has and always will provide for those in need.

The Church hasn't, nor will it condone actions regarded as sinful.

The Church has and will continue to ask for forgiveness for those in the past that have done wrong it its Holy name.

The Church will always be persecuted by those within, and on the outside that seek its demise that their own selfish gains be achieved, just as Christ was and just as he Promised his Church would.

If they don't wish to deal with the city's laws, then they shouldn't take the money.

No doubt other groups will get in line to receive the money and run the programs. It may take some time, during which there are those who will suffer, but that's the way contracting works.

The RCC has to abide by other laws that apply within any jurisdiction.

Seems to me that this may become an opportunity for others to demonstrate their capabilities and good will, if the RCC is adamant. They are well within their rights to be adamant, but no one and no one group is so important that they cannot be replaced.

And for those misinformed about the Anglican issue, the Church did not in any way 'poach' or hunt members from England. As a matter of fact, the members of the Anglican church seeking to be in recommunion with the Catholic Church have been petitioning the pope for over two years, and have only now been accepted. It was the Anglicans, not the Catholic Church that pushed for the union, the Catholics just welcomed them home.

"Where is the clause that says, "Unless the servant or the homeless person is gay"?"

The Church will continue to serve homosexuals. As fully equal and individual children of God, they are due love and care. They are fully welcome to any of the social services provided by the Church, where I remind you that the Church does not proselytize.

What the Church won't do is follow the DC gay marriage law which would require it to fully recognize gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage. That means offering reception space for gay weddings, extending benefits to gay partners of its employees, and so on. The Church will not accept that and is willing to fall out of compliance and lose their certification to partner with DC agencies to provide social services under DC control.

The Church will instead take their over $10 million in matching funds and add to the robust offering of social services they offer, fully without the partnership of the DC government.

Another example of perfect planning by the Arch of W,DC!! Put out a threat like this--right in the middle of the Combined Federal Campaign. What a shame.

'Seems to me that this may become an opportunity for others to demonstrate their capabilities and good will, if the RCC is adamant. They are well within their rights to be adamant, but no one and no one group is so important that they cannot be replaced. '

Good point, since the Church is adamant, others may take up the yoke under the proposed legislation, Catholics will be happy to go private and use our money to help the poor without having to compromise the Faith.

Tax the church. It has become a political, not religious, entity. Use the tax money to offer social services that do not discrimate. That way, this bigotted and un-Christlike "church" will still pay for it.

Let's see--we have six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court; the U.S. Catholic bishops have lobbied against healthcare reform ostensibly because of abortion; and now in DC they are holding the poor hostage in an attempt to deny fellow Americans their civil rights. It's time to stand up to Rome, folks. We are not a Vatican state. Where is Henry VIII when you need him? Oh, yeah, I forgot, the Vatican has invited Episcopalians who share in right wing hatred of women and homosexuals to abandon their church. It is getting downright medieval around here, thanks to the psuedo-Protestants George Bush I and II.

Overlooked by many of the posters is that no one is compelling the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholic Charities, to accept taxpayer money, and undoubtedly there are other non-profit organizations, including other "faith-based organizations," ones that do not institutionalize the sexual abuse of minors, which would be willing to follow the civil law and Jesus' teachings in helping the needy, thereby rendering both to Caesar and to God what is theirs.

Would it have been acceptable if the Southern Baptist Churches or the Mormon temples were to have said we'll take taxpayer money as long as we can deny benefits to Blacks?

Catholic Charities is free to do almost whatever it wants with non-taxpayer money. And that whole thing about being forced to rent church halls for lesbian gatherings is garbage, which the Archdiocese undoubtedly knew was garbage when they said it.

fr MO:

>...The Catholic Church has said if DC IMPOSES this condition on them, they will no longer administer the facilities. They arent IMPOSING their morality, they are refusing to have DC's social agenda IMPOSED on them...

The CC is most certainly IMPOSING their "morality" on others, and they know it. It's high time they were made to be non-discriminatory towards GLBT workers and recipients, and to have to come out of the 11th century into the 21st century.

"What the Church won't do is follow the DC gay marriage law which would require it to fully recognize gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage. That means offering reception space for gay weddings, extending benefits to gay partners of its employees, and so on."

One can do those things while still believing that gay marriage is wrong. Those actions don't constitute endorsement of gay marriage. I've photographed a couple of weddings on a free-lance basis, and whatever my opinion of the choice of partners, that was irrelevant to the fact that I was hired to provide a service.

"you would make that claim on the assumption that acting on one's homosexuality is not harmful; it is. It not only puts the souls of those involved in jeopardy, but also those of others exposed to the sin, tempting them to accept it."

We can't assume that souls indeed exist, and we also can't assume that all of the Church's clients believe in the existence of souls.

Also, how does exposure to a sin tempt one to accept it? Are you saying there's something inherently tempting about homosexuality?

Jeez, I guess all the second and third marriages between heterosexuals are immoral too, unless there was procreation involved.

"For those that missed it in recent news reports, the Church is now 100% behind SETI type explorations into the possibility of alien life forms ..."
Posted by: persiflage

Persiflage, just an aside, in the on-line paper, the Seattle PI, the sub-head on this story was, "E. T., phone Rome."

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The people who defend the Church's actions are choosing to be irrational. They are twisting the Word of God to support their own bigotry. When I hear about how many Americans have walked away from organized religion, I say, "Thank God!"

It's pretty simple here, people. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Serving the poor is right. Withholding services from the poor because you disagree with the government's stance on homosexuality is wrong.

I wish I didn't care so much about what all you extremists think, but I've seen what extremism leads to and I'd prefer to not get there.

Greenbow

You are a pretentious and insulting snob. You think you are better than other people? You think you are better than gay people? I don't think so. It is you, with your inferior "belief system" of bigotry against your fellow man, who is not worthy.

Comparing your belief system of homophobia to the Jewish preference not to eat pork is insulting, to say the least.

You accuse your Catholic critics of Catholic bashing? You have a whole army of closetted gay priests, lead by a Pope, who in any other setting would be looked upon with a suspicion of being gay, himself, to lead the assault on gay people.

You say that you have nothing against being gay; it is just adultery and fonication which is the problem. But, oh, yeah, I forgot, gay people are forbidden to marry, so then you say that you do not approve of "practicing" homosexuals, just "non-practising" ones.

For your ignorant and ill-informed information, being gay is not a profession "to be practised." No is being gay a musical instrument "to be practised."

Being gay is a psychological dispostion, integral to a person's whole being and personality.

I suppose you think gay people "choose" to be gay? And you should get extra points with God for not making such a choice? Tell us how you made the choice not to be gay. Tell us what a terribly difficult struggle you had resisting the temptation to be gay, so that God can give you some extra brownie points.

Or was it really that you never had any inclination nor interest in being gay, and therefore it was not really a choice? You chose not to do something that you really didn't want to do, anyway?

You may call this an "ad hominum" attack on you. I call it tough love. You do not deserve to be punished, for your wrong beliefs. You do not deserve to be hanged, burned at the stake, nor strangled to death as your church has done to "wrong-thinking" people in the past.

But you do deserve a good swift kick in the pants.

Mr. Waters' article is entirely disingenuous. The Catholic Church isn't threatening to withhold social services as a cynical, political ploy to force the government to do X, Y, or Z.

The D.C. City government is considering requiring the Catholic Church's various agencies, if they continue operating, to operate in certain ways that we find abhorrent. So the Archdiocese is saying, "Listen, we're not going to be pushed into doing X, Y, and Z that we feel are wrong. We'll just stop operating, that's all."

That's perfectly defensible. What's indefensible is the City government trying to make the Church do a list of things that are not intrinsic to its mission, but contradict it; and to make doing this things a condition of doing what it already does that everybody already admits are needed and that the Church does well - schools, hospitals, etc.

Alex511 wrote that the Church knows it is imposing its morality on others, and that it's "high time they were made to be non-discriminatory"; but isn't that imposing your morality on the Church, Alex? Why are your moral views about being non-discriminatory better than the Church's views? Who the heck are you to go around imposing your personal morals on other people?

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me the Archdiocese is saying that according to the current wording of the DC SameSex Marriage proposal, it would expose them to serious legal issues if they refuse to act contary to the tenants of their faith and therefore cannot be in a position to act within their contractual agreements with the city. Aren't they just covering their backsides?

I guess the message is now: give unto Caesar what is Ceasar's ... unless you think Caesar is asking for too much, in that case punish the poor and homeless.

No one is suggesting that the Church perform gay marriages or even approve of the marriages, just that they follow local laws. They don't have to approve of those laws, just follow them.

For every comment, try replacing 'gay marriage' with 'interracial marriage' and see how ridiculous many arguments are.

"You say that you have nothing against being gay; it is just adultery and fonication which is the problem. But, oh, yeah, I forgot, gay people are forbidden to marry, so then you say that you do not approve of "practicing" homosexuals, just "non-practising" ones.
POSTED BY: DANIELINTHELIONSDEN"

The Church endorses many celibate singles that sacrifice their sexual attraction to live a life for the Lord without seeking the sacrament of marriage.
Unfortunately, prevailing culture has no appreciation for celibacy or even chastity. To be hyper-sexualized and driven by your sexual impulses is to be considered 'normal' by the left, and the liberal media is free to promote promiscuity endlessly.
But such a lifestyle is not normal. In fact, it's destructive, incomplete and unfulfilling. The Church stands in defiance of this culture and challenges us to seek a greater truth.

Cprferry said:

"To be hyper-sexualized and driven by your sexual impulses is to be considered 'normal' ..."

It is the agreed upon medical consensus that a happy sex life is part of being a healthy human being. That is what we know now, that was not known, considered, or even thought about when Christ lived.

What a clever pharas you have dreamed up; how Catholic of you to have done so; this is nothing more than mean-spirited spite which is motivated by political hostility towards gay people.

This is not a conversation about being "hyper-sexualized."

I could use the same kind of rude argument against Catholicism. I could say that to be a good Catholic, a person must be prudish, frigid, and modest to the point of an obsessive compulsion. I could say that God only loves people who are neurotically repressed in their sexuality, and that should be the goal of all Catholics, and that is how a good Catholic should live.

But isn't this all a little off the subject of religious belief? and a little childish? To hold a positon of brutal bigotry and call it "religon" is an argument that is dying and will soon be dead and buried, I hope.

Clinging onto the hem of Jesus to justify your bigotry does not constitute a religious belief.

Bully, bully, bully all you want, in the name of God. That don't make it so!

This is what happens when government does business with a church. Now the catholics are trying to blackmail the DC government into denying dignity the gays. I’m glad the DC council is defying these intolerant neanderthals. Call the hypocrites’ bluff. Let them renege on the contracts, and then sue the daylights out of them. After DC wins that case, cancel all further business with the church. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for something these do-gooders are compelled to do anyway, and will pay for themselves? It’s a win for DC.

Conditional Love.
Unconditional Truth.

Could there be a connection here?
Not just for Catholic Church.

fr oracle2world:

>...If a gay couple wants to be married, then move to a gay marriage state. Like Massachutts. People move for a lot lesser reasons. Like a job, school, warm weather, be near relatives, etc. If marriage is really and truly the only thing standing between a GLBT couple and ultimate bliss, then a move to a gay friendly state should be easy for them. And if a GLBT couple keeps whining about "how unfair" when fair is across a state line ... well, marriage just isn't quite the issue they make it out to be....

Sorry, you're wrong. I am a gay Christian woman who married my lovely WIFE last year. Why should glbt couples have to "move to a gay-friendly state" to get married just because YOU don't like the FACT that Marriage Equality WILL someday be the law in all 50 states? How would YOU feel if someone waltzed up to YOU and told YOU to "just move to a 'straight-friendly state'"?

Get a clue, get educated, and grow UP.

"What a clever pharas you have dreamed up; how Catholic of you to have done so; this is nothing more than mean-spirited spite which is motivated by political hostility towards gay people.
This is not a conversation about being "hyper-sexualized.
POSTED BY: DANIELINTHELIONSDEN"

No, it's a brief revelation into what you believe makes a person gay. It is not just that they hold homosexual attraction, but that they must be open and active in their sexuality.

Prevailing culture and the state prescribes that such individuals fully explore their sexuality and be granted full benefits not simply as homosexuals, who as human beings are due love and care of all, but to their homosexual relationships as well, which are viewed as immoral and disrespectful of God's law and the sacraments by the Church.

The Church values each and every homosexual as a child of God, routinely showing its love and care through forgiveness, love and service to all humans whereas the state and liberal culture exploits homosexuals toward the destruction of the Church, society, morality and indeed even the homosexual population.

"Let them renege on the contracts, and then sue the daylights out of them
POSTED BY: ADRIENNE_NAJJAR"

You don't seem to understand the issue. The Church is not seeking to remove itself from the contracts. Rather, the Church is saying they will ignore the DC gay marriage law, risk being out of compliance and being shut out BY DC from partnerships. Think of it like a grant recipient being ruled out of compliance and dropped from the grant program due to incomplete documentation, etc.

What's at risk is that in their partnerships with DC social service agencies, the Archdiocese puts up over $10 million dollars in funds, countless hours of facility space and by volunteers to programs simultaneously funded (although not at the level of the Archdiocese), monitored and controlled by the DC government.

Should DC rule that the Archdiocese is unable to seek partnerships with the DC government due to their refusal to abide by the DC gay marriage law, the Church will remove that $10 million dollars, building space and volunteers and pump them into the social service programs they already operate outside the reach of the DC government.

The Church is not threatening to drop its programs, but rather threatening to disobey an unjust law despite the risk of falling out of compliance and having DC break its partnerships.

It's unfortunate because the combined resources and capabilities of the Archdiocese and the DC government provides for numerous necessary and effective social service programs that may not be able to offered at the same level or efficiency by just the Archdiocese or a new DC government partner.

"You think you are better than other people? You think you are better than gay people? I don't think so. It is you, with your inferior "belief system" of bigotry against your fellow man, who is not worthy."
I don't think I'm better than anyone, but I do think that I am right in my beliefs, and those that accept the practice of homosexuality are not. These are me beliefs, but hate is in no way included. You accuse me of being a bigot because I don't agree with what I view to be immoral, yet you and your compatriots loath that which has a different beleif than your own, the Church, and openly profess that hate against it. Who is the real bigot here? My faith compells me to love even you, who spit on the Church, but that doesn't mean I'll sit around while it's wrongfully attacked.

Homophobia, now there's a term the liberals like to throw at the Church. I am not scared of homosexuals or homosexuality, but I think it is a moral perversion, yes, just like adultry and marrying a dozen times after divorce, they are one in the same. You're right though, there are gay priests, because being gay doesn't matter, it's what you do with that temptation or 'chemical' imbalance that matters. Again, I'm not asking you to agree with me, just trying to explain it that you might understand.

Gay people are forbidden to marry because to do so would bring them into an unholy union, so is not the same as a man and woman. The marriage of gays is viewed in the same light as the re-marriage of divorced heterosexuals, it's just that the media likes to cover the gay issue more.

Never said gay was a profession, even said it wasn't a choice in most cases. I did say that everyone is given things to deal with in this life, and a desire to do evil is one of them. Gay people are to resist the temptation of acting on their immediate desires, much as heterosexuals are to control their lust. Not everyone is called to be married, and there are many other ways to serve society, as you mentioned, the gay priests who have accepted their predicament and dealt with it.

No, I've not had to deal with the homosexual temptation, but I've dealt with heterosexual ones, and countless others that engulf society. The point is, everyone has different challenges in life they must overcome, and 'giving up because it's not fair' isn't an excuse.

If by 'tough love' you mean uneducated bigotry, then I agree with you. I also agree that everyone needs a 'kick in the pants' every now and then, especially when people go around with the presubosition of entitlement, that they should get what they desire, for no other reason than they desire it. This animalistic behavior is society's downfall. However, letting anger get in the way of discussion is fruitless, and thus I am open to any more logical arguements.

Many posters here are using a certain theological and doctrinal position to argue that homosexuality is immoral. But the arguments wouldn't make sense to people who don't share that position, and that would include many Christians as well as just about all non-Christians. If you seek to convince others that homosexuality is immoral, would you do so from a neutral position regarding any religion or theology? In other words, what case would you make for homosexuality's immorality if you were speaking to a Hindu or Buddhist or Shintoist or animist?

Greenbow

I do not hate Catholics and I do not spit on the Catholic Church. That is part of your religious paranoia. And no I do not hate people who suffer from paranoia, since it IS and illness.

You seemed to miss all of my points. And persist in your prideful way, that your sexual orientation, and your "special" Catholic beliefs make you better than other people and more favored in God's eyes, when that is just silly nonsense, plain and simple. You cling to a Medeival paradigm of the world, which is gone; IT IS GONE!!

You are living a life with blinders on.

Hmmm, "Carstonio" returns yet again. Be wary, this is a semi-anonymous blog and said ID is on a long list of imposter names.

And once again:

Hmmm lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip? To say the least, an unusual situation. Then there are those "made in China" toys/strap-ons. Lets hope the FDA has checked them for lead and other toxic components. And do said "toys" come with sanitizers and/or sterilization instructions? Might not Washington, DC make that part of their same-sex union law i.e. all "toys" shall have FDA approval!!!

How would I argue about immorality without a moral basis? If I were to discuss matters with a Buddhist or Hindu, I would have to start at the basis of faith, and work my way up. May aim is not to convert, but rather to present the position from which the Church made this decision in DC. You don't have to accept the belifs to appreciate that the decision was made based on an intrinsic moral code.

"How would I argue about immorality without a moral basis?"

One could start from the Golden Rule as a general principle. Since versions of that rule are found in numerous philosophies and religions, that suggests that the principle may be self-evident from the human experience of living.

"If I were to discuss matters with a Buddhist or Hindu, I would have to start at the basis of faith, and work my way up."

What about people who do not have faith, such as deists?

"You don't have to accept the belifs to appreciate that the decision was made based on an intrinsic moral code."

Intrinsic to what? If it's intrinsic to Catholicism, why would one expect non-Catholics to abide by that code?

"May aim is not to convert, but rather to present the position from which the Church made this decision in DC."

But many people here are insisting that homosexuality is immoral for the entire human race, not just for Catholics.

"The Church is not seeking to remove itself from the contracts. Rather, the Church is saying they will ignore the DC gay marriage law, risk being out of compliance and being shut out BY DC from partnerships."

If the DC council passes a law and the Church breaks the law, then they lose the contract. Pretty straightforward. The Archdiocese doesn't want the law passed, but the Archdiocese doesn't have a vote. Institutions don't get votes, registered voters do, as do their duly elected representatives.

Time will tell. Personally, I don't think any religious venue has to be available to anybody with the bucks. But...a lot of them do exactly that for non-members of the congregation. They charge more, I would suspect. So, either you only make your facilities available to members of your congregation (or faither), or open them up to the highest bidder.

I doubt that if the RCC pulls out of the contract, or is fired from it for breaking the law, that it will go unfilled for too long. After all, there is money exchanging hands. Some organization or another will be perfectly willing to administer the program, follow the law and collect the money.

Skowronek,

Are you proposing that the Church act against their beliefs and conscious to maintain the partnership? That they should not lobby the city for protections to an unjust law that violates their religious beliefs?

And, as you suggest that Church resources be utilized for the greatest monetary value, I think you have a very different set of values than the Church has and how it is to use its resources, including the over $10 million dollars, facilities and volunteers it provides to supplement its partnerships with the DC government.

There are a lot of needs out there. The Church will continue to serve with or without DC. It's likely that DC will find organizations requesting funds, but the question is whether those organizations are capable of contributing as much and performing as well as the Church had, particularly when cooperating together under DC directives with the Church's contributions and resources.

You have the argument "Backwards" MR WATERS. What is really going on here is that a small group of people obsessed with primarily identifying themselves with what they do with their genitals, have taken it upon themselves to usurp government in order enforce the acceptance of their sexual practices upon people and religious entities who can not, will not, never have, and never will accept their sexual practices along with a great many other sexual practices deemed immoral. Why? Because they have no power to change that which DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY..or "AUTHOR"S RIGHT" to change the doctrine of the Church. WHY? because they are STEWARDS of their church, and cannot change what they believe has been setup by GOD, the creator of the entire universe and everything in it. It is the HOMOSEXUALS, people who are so damned determined to force acceptance of their sexual practices on everyone else who are threatening the poor of D.C....NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND...MR. WATERS, Enabler of the BIG LIE that your are! Stand FIRM BISHOPS...THIS GOVERNMENT BULLYING MUST STOP!

So, according to damascuspride 04,it's the Homosexual Acts that offend the Catholic Church; otherwise these people are 'just people in need like anyone else'? Worthy of charity like anyone else? Then maybe some of our gay and lesbian friends ought to put this to the test. If a homosexual act could somehow result in procreation (put on your thinking caps, I'll spare you the graphic descriptions),would these people be OK in the eyes of the church? Because I've always thought procreation as a goal was kind of a silly concept. Does the guy who knows he fires blanks commit a sin? How does one determine the "intent" when each sperm seems to swim wherever it wants to? Would a turkey baster full of Daddy's finest satisfy the requirement between two otherwise loving lesbians?
Let the Catholics provide their charity to who they want -- it's theirs to give. If getting to their heaven means giving to only 'proper'people in need,then let them because their God will supposedly be using their rules and tote board to tally their goodness. But if homosexuality was such an important infamnia, I don't see it spelled out very clearly like,say, an eleventh commandment. SO if and when they do reach Judgement Day, and they happen to notice two same sex angels holding hands at the entrance to the Pearly Gates, then I sure hope they don't mind all the subtractions from the good deeds tote board for judging others by some standard that God sure didn't write.

"enforce the acceptance of their sexual practices upon people and religious entities..."

Let's keep some perspective. It would only be enforcing if, say, a gay couple pulled a gun on a straight person and ordered the person to join them in a threesome.

As an analogy, if a vegetarian works as a server in a restaurant, meat-eating patrons aren't forcing their dietary preference on the server. And if the vegetarian server feels it would immoral of him to serve meat to patrons, then why hold that particular job in the first place? The Archdiocese's position is like that of a server who refuses to serve meat-eating patrons, or refuses to take their orders for meat dishes. If the organization doesn't want to, say, rent out its space for gay weddings, then it could simply not rent out the space at all.

"Because I've always thought procreation as a goal was kind of a silly concept.
POSTED BY: HARRYH1"

It is a silly concept, but that's not what the Catholic faith teaches about sexual intimacy. If it was, then wouldn't having children in extramarital affairs be acceptable?
The Church teaches that sexual intimacy is not merely physical, but the full giving of self - physical, emotional, and relationship with God - to your spouse.
In sexual union, they become quite literally one flesh. In that shared love is a love of God and his many blessings, notably the sacrament of marriage and of new life. To reject either is to reject God, thus rejecting part of self and injuring your relationship with God, who is love, and rendering you incapable of fully giving yourself.
Catholics don't have sex just to procreate, but to fully give themselves to their spouse. They are open to God's blessings and the new life the act may create.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Recent news reports have mistakenly claimed that the Archdiocese of Washington and its social services arm, Catholic Charities, are threatening to cease providing social services in the District of Columbia if the proposed bill to legalize same sex marriage is passed.

Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services if a same sex marriage bill passes. Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services.

What we have said to the Council is this: While we are opposed to redefining marriage in the District of Columbia, if the Council moves forward to do so, we respectfully request that religious individuals and organizations be afforded protection from restrictions on their deeply held religious beliefs and that the Council preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the poor and most vulnerable residents of the District of Columbia.

Attached is a fact sheet with further information that we hope may assist you in understanding the issues. Please share this with your colleagues, friends, and others. Additional information, including testimony, press releases and other material, is available at www.marriagemattersdc.org.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Barry C. Knestout
Auxiliary Bishop of Washington
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia

"Let's keep some perspective. It would only be enforcing if, say, a gay couple pulled a gun on a straight person and ordered the person to join them in a threesome."

Enforced "Acceptance" and Enforced "Acts" are two different things right? Your analogy immediately and utterly fails the 1+1=2 test. I do not, as a Catholic, have to accept your "Sexual Proclivities and Actions"...thought crime that it apparently is. My "Thoughts" and "Ideals" are not privvy to "Government Control", unless you are a lib I guess...in that case it is. The idea that you strawmanned my position as though the government was trying to "Turn People Homosexual"...is typical of lib Straw Man arguments. But please keep up with your subterfuge...because you have no argument. The CHURCH cannot be an entity to enable activities that go against its doctrines...period. END OF STORY.

In regards to the "Server in the Restaurent" metaphor. Actually no...The Church is the Restaurent...It is very public about WHAT IT SERVES..and the Government is the "ACTIVIST SERVER" trying to gain entrance into the RESTAURANT For the sole purpose of "CHANGING ITS MENU" nothing more. THAT IS THE REAL ANALOGY.

"Is the Church really going to ignore the gospel imperative to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the disadvantaged—in this case 70,000—because it might have to provide better benefits to a few of its own workers?"

I like this commentary to explain the situation:

"That’s like saying, “Is the Church really going to allow Henry VIII to despoil the monasteries and churches and thereby ignore the Gospel imperative to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the disadvantaged, just because Pope Clement doesn’t want to give the king his annulment and let him be head of the church in England?”

I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant by “going the extra mile.”

Too stupid for comment.

"That they should not lobby the city for protections to an unjust law that violates their religious beliefs"?

If the RCC "Lobby's" the city, then it is not acting as a church, but a lobbying organization. Therefore, it's tax exempt status should be pulled, and the no-longer-church should be taxed.

Jesus said that everyone should obey the laws of the land. He did not say anything about acting upon the moral conscience, and disobeying the law. If the church disobeys any law, that makes it a criminal action. If they refuse to marry a couple over their sexual preference, but the law says that that it is discrimination, then the church broke the law and should be penalized for it by the law of the land.

If the RCC does not like these laws, then they are more than welcome to pack up their toys and go home, (I.E.; move out of DC, or out of the US for that matter).

Furthermore, I don't see how the RCC can call itself a church, when they are declared a sovereign country that is detached from Italy, and sport a seat at the UN? From this, I don't see how they could be tax exempt. Especially when they are investing the money of its the parishioners into stocks, bonds, and properties. That's a corporation, not a church. Plus, they make every parishioner give a percentage of their income, whether they can afford it or not. If they don't pay the piper, then they can't be saved, and are not a Catholic. Well that is until the pay up.

Lastly, where in the Bible, the King James version, or the one that the RCC hasn't added to it, say anything about anyone within the church being celibate? As a matter of fact, it mentions being married to be a Deacon or Elder (Bishop, etc for the RCC). That is mentioned where it stated how the church is to be ran. Of course the RCC has added way more to it than the Bible says that must be done. I guess they are right, and Christ was wrong?

Also, Christ forgave everyone, and was never bigoted in that way. He also helped anyone who asked for help. He never turned his back on anyone who asked for it. Again, I guess the RCC and the Pope is right, and Jesus himself was wrong?

The RCC has also chosen to turn its back on scientific evidence that gay people can't help being the way they are. The RCC has turned its back on science since its inception. Of course, they are the church that says if a Baby is not baptized, and it should die, it can't be saved, and will burn in Hell. A baby mind you, that can not know the difference between right and wrong.

DC should simply ignore the RCC, pass the law, and get on with it. There are plenty other organizations that can pick up where the RCC refuses the poor help. Plus, I would like to see an audit about the monies that the RCC has already received. How much of the cash actually reached the poor?

Will Mat,
Every citizen and organization is allowed to lobby under the protections of the Freedom of Speech. Churches and all 501c3 non-profits are prevented from extensive lobbying and endorsing specific candidates and/or parties.

Here's how this boils down:

1. Church spends it's own $ to help the poor.

2. City pays Church city $ to provide more help to poor.

3. City has right to set conditions--and adds new conditions for taking city $.

4. Tells Church, follow new rules, or no more city $.

5. Church says, new rules violate our conscience, so--on the terms you set, we decline.

6. Note well: Church will continue to spend its $ as before.

7. City is free to spend its $ for poor, right? Why don't the poor still get same, net benefits? Same money; different providers!

8. Yet Mr. Waters attacks Church as mean, "unbiblical" and hurting the poor, despite:

9. Church will still spend its own $ on the poor;

10 City can spend it's $ on the poor;

11. It was the city that changed the terms!

12. Why is Mr. Water's unhappy, if poor still get same help, city controls its money, and Church keeps it's conscience?

13. Unavoidable conclusion: Mr. Waters isn't happy till Church submits its conscience to the city's demands.

"Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services if a same sex marriage bill passes. Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services".

The RCC should become "ineligible", due to it's bigoted views and blatant discrimination. Don't discriminate, and you can keep the contract. The United States of America is a Democracy, and a free republic. The church was separated from the state to stop the churches control over the government like happened, and still does to this day, in Europe. The citizens of the US formed this country to get away from discrimination, especially from the RCC. The Huguenots fled to America from France over the RCC calling them heretics, and threatening to kill them. They were some of the first founders of the United States. All this because they only wanted to read the Bible that the RCC said they couldn't.

It also sounds to me that the Auxiliary Bishop of Washington is calling David Waters a liar about what he wrote. To be honest, I rather think that the RCC has waffled about what it originally said. I highly doubt Mr. Waters is wrong in his article. They do employ fact checkers at the Washington Post after all.

Will Mat,
Yours and Mr. Waters is a case of believing what you want to.
The Washington Post's Fr. Reese checked his facts and didn't get the story wrong. Even if he does waffles on his position on gay marriage.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/11/catholic_charities_gays_and_dcs_poor.html

DITLD,

For some reason my earlier post to you on the Vatican's nation status was removed, so here it is again:

"The Vatican has an ambassador to the UN, probably to keep track of gay romance worldwide."

Will Matt,

There is NO Scientific evidence that people are born Gay...None...ZIP...NADDA...NOTHING. That is a LIE. It is also a LIE that it is a sin to disobey "Governments". That is also a LIE...the blood of the martyrs and saints can testify to that Will Matt.

This is statist interference of the Church to push an agenda by "Sexual Militants". If the "Sexualists" would just keep their genital interests into the privacy of their own home, instead of into the public area of law where it doesn't belong...this would not be a problem.

Freedom from religion is a basic human right. The people of the United States have as much right to freedom FROM religion as do the people of Pakistan.

This is a human rights issue and should be brought to the United Nations.

IN the meantime,

1. End non profit status for religious institutions

2. End "faith-based" funding, and set up local service delivery via NGOs.

4. Get religion out of the marriage business altogether. All persons must be married by a civil servant. Later they can have whatever religious ceremony they wish.

Some will say that what we have is tantamount to this. All right but what I'm proposing makes a statement that the current "wedding" process does not.

5. REligious institutions must be prevented from lobbying, period, even after they lose tax exempt status. Separation of church and state.
--------------------
Until the foregoing is enacted,

1. Atheist lecturers in the army and every other public venue in which clerics figure.

2. Tax exempt status for atheist/agnostic study centers.

3. Atheist-based funding for human services delivery

I think that Catholic eyes see everything in a far too legalistic and complicated say.

The infinitesimal hair-splitting of Catholic theology is mind-numbing.

Why do Catholics try to expain it all to non-Catholics? It is not explainable in any intelligble way to someone who has not been brought up, marinated in the neurotic complexities of unnecesary and trouble-making theologies.

The fact is, pretty plain and simple, that the ethos of the Catholic Church leans pretty much toward the gay sensibility.

And yet, in a weird twist, the church is also, simultanesouly anti-gay. (I say anti-gay, because Catholics seem to be offended by the word "homophobic," but I am sure that they would agree that "anti-gay" is the correct work and not some "lefty" ivention).

I do not hate the Catholic Church; it is a sad thing to behold. And I do not hate Catholics. I have a Catholic sister-in-law and Catholic nieces. I do not hate them; I love them. But how do they feel about their own church and their religion?

They are pretty mixed up about the whole thing. I feel sorry for them, as well, that the foundation of their religious belief is such a heavy burden for them to endure in the world, everyday.

So much for the wonderful and immutable truth of the Roman Catholic Church.

Awarner1

People do not choose to be gay. If you say otherwise, then you lie, and your church lies. You do not understand the first thing about being gay or sexual orientation. Why not, then, shut up about things that you know nothing of?

You are EXTREMELY hostile to gay people, attributing all kinds of malevolent motivaitons to them, which are not true.

Can you say that you do not hate gay people and with destruction upon them? Your comments wreak of uninformed, ignorant hatred.

Your point of view represents extreme political hostility, not religious belief.

People like you bash, bash, bash, gay people, then get all bent out of shape when someone pushes back.

Then you LIE about your true feelings and that you "hate the sin, but love the sinner."

What a horrifying cliche! I don't believe it. I believe that "right-thinking" Cathlics are required to hate gay people. And if they don't, then they must live in bent and twisted contradition to a religion that requires total and complete subservience.

And finally, gay people have been historically reviled, outcast, tormented, beaten and murdered. Yet, you're the victim.

Hah!

Your speices claims are revolting and absurd.

"And yet, in a weird twist, the church is also, simultanesouly anti-gay. (I say anti-gay, because Catholics seem to be offended by the word "homophobic," but I am sure that they would agree that "anti-gay" is the correct work and not some "lefty" ivention).
POSTED BY: DANIELINTHELIONSDEN"

By your logic, the Church is also anti-straight, because while it loves heterosexuals as equal and individual children of God, it opposes promiscuous behaviors by certain heterosexuals.

WHO, aside from Catholics CARES what the RCC thinks?

Get the church out of the public domain.

Out, seeya.

"Are you proposing that the Church act against their beliefs and conscious to maintain the partnership? That they should not lobby the city for protections to an unjust law that violates their religious beliefs?"

The Church can act according to their beliefs and does. But an organization doesn't get to vote--individuals do.

If the RCC doesn't want to follow local ordinances, then they don't have to. They also don't have to accept any money from the local government.

"It's likely that DC will find organizations requesting funds, but the question is whether those organizations are capable of contributing as much and performing as well as the Church had,"

We may find out. What will people say if they find out that some other organization does as good a job, possibly even better, while complying with an anti-discrimination law?

And let's not overlook that religion IS a business. Money in, money out, and goodness knows there's plenty of evidence of money being kept. Churches have to pay money to their umbrella organization in order to keep the name brand, even. Naturally they need to keep up their property, pay salaries to whomever, pay for insurance, pay the bills inherent in keeping the whole thing running. It's not free. Sometimes, it costs too much and it goes under--property gets sold, churches (or whatever) go out of business when there isn't a congregation to minister to and support it.

The upset about houses of worship being forced to marry those they don't wish to marry is pretty easy to prevent. Don't rent your facilities out to anyone who isn't a member of your faith or your parish. If you keep it in-house, then it's not a problem. Once you say yes to those who aren't members and take their money, you find yourself subject to the same anti-discriminatory laws as any other merchant.

Without a marriage license issued by the jurisdiction (state), no marriage is valid. A wedding performed by a Justice of the Peace is completely valid. No religious officiant is necessary for a wedding to take place and a marriage to be recognized.

This is just getting silly, the fact remains that the Church is doing what it's doing based on its values, period. We agree with these values, you don't, just accept that not everyone sees the world like you do, and the Church is free to do as it pleases with its money. You don't want us to manage government social program money? NP, we'll go totally private which is what you all seem to want anyway. This issue was done about 345 posts ago, you aren't going to change the Church, and its not going to adept to meet your moral views. We believe you're wrong, you believe we're wrong, sweet, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. The issue remains as it is, so let it be and make your piece with it. You don't agree with the explanations that we give, alright, we don't agree with yours, this thread is going nowhere and has degraded into nothing more than bickering, I wish you all well, and thank God that we live in a country where everyone's free to have their own opinions.

"Enforced "Acceptance" and Enforced "Acts" are two different things right?"

How are you defining "acceptance"? Who is saying that anyone has to change their personal opinion of homosexuality or same-sex marriage? This issue is not what the Church or any other organization thinks of homosexuality but how it treats gay couples.

"I do not, as a Catholic, have to accept your "Sexual Proclivities and Actions""

So you think it's wrong for me to be a straight married man?

"The idea that you strawmanned my position as though the government was trying to "Turn People Homosexual""

I didn't say you were accusing the government of doing that. My point is that one's religious freedom does not entitle one to deny service to others based on orientation. The issue is not about the orientation but about the people with the orientation.

"The CHURCH cannot be an entity to enable activities that go against its doctrines"

The organization isn't "enabling" anything, because whether gays (or straights) get married is beyond its power and beyond the power of any other religious or secular organization. It's not like the gay married couples are going to get divorced and turn straight based on the Church withholding benefits.

I suspect that the real problem is that the Church's concept of absolute truth conflicts with its roles as social service provider and employer and property owner. Any of those roles brings the organization into contact with people from different religions and different philosophies. If the Church's members believe that their own salvation is threatened by a certain degree of interaction with such people, why not abandon those roles? One solution used by some Protestant fundamentalists amounts to setting up a semi-private parallel culture. (I've heard of Christian music/book stores stocking only "contemporary Christian" artists, not even recognizing Bach's and Handel's sacred works as Christian music.)

The Amish have the right idea. They regard electric lines and phone lines as potential threats to the unity of their families and communities, and they have the right to believe that and act accordingly. But to my knowledge, they have never refused services to non-Amish people, or even tried to dissuade non-Amish from using laptops or Blackberrys. I've had some personal experience with them. Why couldn't an organization like the Church adopt the same approach, treating anything that non-Catholics of both orientations do in their private lives as none of its business?

"Once you say yes to those who aren't members and take their money, you find yourself subject to the same anti-discriminatory laws as any other merchant."

Yes. That's the point - when an organization does that, it becomes a professional matter and not a private one.

"NP, we'll go totally private which is what you all seem to want anyway."

I don't necessarily want that, although it might be a workable solution. I just oppose the idea of discrimination in what amounts to a service for the general public. If one sees such services as "enabling" behavior, that would cover much more than just same-sex marriage.

Cprferry

The Catholic Church gives preferential treatment to straight people and pursues an anti-gay agenda; this is clear for everyone to see. In its enforcement of doctrine, the Catholic hierarchy selects, cafeteria-style, who is more sinful than whom, and obviously, being gay is the worst thing a person can be.

I think the Catholic Church should change alot of its doctrines because they are WRONG and even more, pose a menace to society. Specifially, they should end their anti-gay campaign, which ruins people's lives and destroys families.

It also is the cause for unending arguing and dissension whenever these questions arise. And this problem is not going away.

After centuries of intimidation, gay people have at long last found a voice. And that is really the problem, isn't it? Gay people should shut up and go back into the closet. Well, that is NEVER going to happen.

If the world is not big enough for Catholics and gay people to coexist together, which is the impression that I get from the church's ceaseless anti-gay campaign, then maybe it is time for Catholics to shut up and go into the closet.

"And let's not overlook that religion IS a business. Money in, money out, and goodness knows there's plenty of evidence of money being kept. Churches have to pay money to their umbrella organization in order to keep the name brand, even. Naturally they need to keep up their property, pay salaries to whomever, pay for insurance, pay the bills inherent in keeping the whole thing running. It's not free. Sometimes, it costs too much and it goes under--property gets sold, churches (or whatever) go out of business when there isn't a congregation to minister to and support it.
Posted by: Skowronek"

Excuse me, but are you implying that the Church is stealing from public coffers? Might I remind you that the Church puts up over $10 million dollars in their own money in their social service partnerships with the DC government. The reason why the Church is granted so many contracts is because it's well funded, generous and capable. DC social service agencies know that not only can the Church do a great job, the Church will greatly expand the reach of the program's services with their own funds.

"The Catholic Church gives preferential treatment to straight people and pursues an anti-gay agenda
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen"

Prove it and I'll show you someone who has been admonished by their superior. The Catholic religion does not discriminate against individuals, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, but refuses to endorse immoral behavior, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Hmmm, there is that " Carstonio " person again. Yes indeed said person in on the potential imposter list. Again be wary of all posters on semi-anonymous blogs!!!

And indeed let us stop tax breaks for all non-profits who have some type of moral or ethical agenda:

e.g.

The Democratic Party
The Republican Party

American Civil Liberties Union
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Amnesty International
Anti-Defamation League
Association on American Indian Affairs
B'nai B'rith International
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
The Carter Center
Center for Constitutional Rights
Committee for Missing Children
Doctors of the World
Human Rights Watch
NAACP

American Humane Association
American Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Welfare Institute
Associated Humane Societies
Best Friends Animal Society
Born Free United with Animal Protection Institute
Defenders of Wildlife
Doris Day Animal League
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue
Delta Society
The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee
Farm Sanctuary
Humane Farming Association
Marine Mammal Center
National Audobon Society
Land Conservation and the Environment
American Farmland Trust
American Forests
American Rivers
Center for Biological Diversity
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Cousteau Society
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International
Earth Island Institute
Earth Justice
Environmental Defense Fund
Farm Aid
Greenpeace
Keep America Beautiful
National Parks Foundation
Ocean Conservancy
Wildlife Conservation Society
Ads by Google

General Emergency Relief
American Jewish World Services
American Red Cross
See Also: Red Cross USA, Facts About American Red Cross, and Red Cross History
Fire Fighters' Charity
Refugees
American Near East Refugee Aid
American Refugee Committee
Medical Assistance
Americares
Catholic Medical Missions Board
Direct Relief International
Doctors without Borders
International Medical Corps
Medical Teams International
Operation Smile

Africa America Institute
AFS USA
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Indian College Fund
Asia Society
Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence
Hispanic Scholarship Fund
Scholarship America

American Heart Association
American Stroke Association
Arthritis Research Institute
Avon Foundation
City of Hope/Beckman Research Institute
Epilepsy Foundation and Research
AIDS Research Alliance
ALS Association
American Diabetes Association
Autism Speaks
Deafness Research Foundation
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
Lupus Research Institute
National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression

continued below:

Alzheimer's Association
Kidney Fund
American Leprosy Mission
American Liver Foundation
American Lung Association
American Parkinson's Disease Association
Arthritis Foundation
Bailey House
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Easter Seals
Huntington's Disease Society of America
Multiple Sclerosis Foundation
National Association for the Terminally Ill

American Brain Tumor Association
American Cancer Society
Cancer Care
Cancer Center for Protection and Prevention
Cancer Federation
Cancer Fund of America
Cancer Recovery Foundation
Cancer Research Institute
St Jude's Children's Research Hospital
American Breast Cancer Foundation
Childhood Leukemia Foundation
National Children's Cancer Society
Children's Cancer Research Institute
Jimmy Fund
Lance Armstrong Foundation
American Action Fund for Blind Children and Adults
American Association of the Deaf-Blind
American Foundation for Disabled Children
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
Guide Dogs of America
Heritage for the Blind
Catholic Charities
Catholic Relief Services
Christian Appalachia Project
Christian Relief Services
Coalition for the Homeless
Lutheran World Relief
Action Against Hunger
Africare
Bread for the World
Care
City Harvest
Feed My People
Food Bank for New York City
Promoting Self Sufficiency
Accion International
National Relief Charities
Bowery Residents' Committee
Brother's Brother Foundation
Center for Community Change
FINCA International
Food for the Hungry
Habitat for Humanity
Heifer Project International
Impoverished Children
World Villages for Children
Children International
Christian Children's Fund
Compassion International
Covenant House
Sanctity of Life
American Life League
AARP Foundation
American Health Assistance Foundation
Seniors' Coalition
Supporting Military and Veterans
Adopt a Platoon
Air Force Aid Society
American Veteran's Relief Foundation
Armed Forces Aid Campaign
Armed Services YMCA
Army Emergency Relief
Blinded Veterans Assocation
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Supporting Fire Fighters and Police
American Association of State Troopers
American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens
Association for Firefighters and Paramedics
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund
Watchdog Groups
Accuracy in Media
Citizens Against Government Waste
Common Cause
Judicial Watch
Media Research
Children and Youth

Big Brothers
Big Sisters of America
Boy Scouts of America
Boys and Girls Club of America
Campfire USA
Cedars Homes for Children
Child Find of America
Child Welfare League of America
Girl Scouts
Junior Achievement
National 4-H Council
SADD
Women
Catalyst
Family Care International
Global Fund for Women
International Planned Parenthood
League of Women Voters
National Organization for Women
Finding a Complete List of Nonprofit Organizations

I also like Fiddler on the Roof.

"Excuse me, but are you implying that the Church is stealing from public coffers?"

No, I'm not. What I'm flat-out stating is a fact. If you want to have a "specialized" house of worship, you have to have money to access it. You even have to pay money to the umbrella organization in order to keep your membership (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Catholic, etc.) and be able to state that you are a member church.

Dedicated churches are not free. So, either your congregation is large enough and gives enough to keep it going, or they don't.

The fact that the RCC has the funds to put up themselves means that they are taking in more money than they spend. I'm not suggesting they're skimming from the contract, simply that they are making a profit somewhere or other. Donating money to the altar fund is a tax write-off for the donor, but that doesn't mean the church is buying them at retail prices. That would be stupid.

Anyway, the RCC can continue to be itself. But they may not be in a position to bid on the city contract anymore as they are worried that a potential law would make them non-compliant.

Perhaps their withdrawal will be the opportunity other groups have been waiting for--or maybe they have been bidding but losing. Without the juggernaut, they have a chance of winning it. I don't know, but I can't imagine that the contract will go unrewarded.

CCNL wrote:

"And indeed let us stop tax breaks for all non-profits who have some type of moral or ethical agenda:"

Quite a number on your list are secular, not religious. Religious individuals forming a separate group to lobby is one thing; a religious organization coming right out and making it clear that they don't want "those people" (currently homosexuals) to have civil rights that others have, is where many people get upset. I don't see where the Alzheimer's Foundation is complaining about this law yet-to-be-passed.

Delusional1 - "Has anybody on this post ever read the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This first amendment was written to protect the citizens from tyrants like the DC council. Are they part of the USA or not? Their ordinance won't last a minute before it is challenged and thrown out as unconstitutional. And well it should."

You are completely off the mark and don't understand the first ammendment. the DC Council is not choosing a state religion, they are saying this is a CIVIL law on discrimination and it you take movey from local government, obey local government laws. The Catholic church can exercise their religion without issue and continue their works without government funding. Civil law have faught relgious intolerance for years under the guise of religious principles including slavery, women driving cars, voting rights for women, multi-racial marriage, divorce, etc.

The issue here is the Catholic church's strong arm tactic of telling the council that they will restrict their involvement in ALL other works due to this provision. That is simply a bullying tactic and they should be called on it.

The problem with the civil rights argument based on who you want to have sex with is that everyone is not included. When the gay lobby includes the fundamentalist Mormons who believe in polygamy in their quest for marriage equality, I will listen to them. As it is, they are not fighting for marriage equality - just redefining marriage to include their particular view of it. How NOT inclusive.

Daniel

1. I never said they "Choose" to be gay however NOR has science said they are "Born" gay. I have had; however, gays admit to me that they have "Chosen" their lifestyle.
2. Actually DANIEL I DO RELATE TO HOMOSEXUALS Because I am a tempted Human Being…I DO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING ABOUT BEING GAY…IT’S A COMPULSION…I am a MARRIED MAN. Myself and any an infinite number of red-blooded males have compulsions that make us sexually attracted to any number of women every day. If I TURNED TO MY WIFE AND SAID…”You know honey…I’m sorry I was “BORN” this way and though I LOVE YOU…ITS NATURAL FOR ME TO WANT TO SLEEP WITH OTHER WOMEN…and you shouldn’t be such an “ignorant bigot” for not allowing me to do what’s “Natural” for me…because I WAS BORN THIS WAY”. So you see Daniel…I have a lot in common with people who have Same Sex Attraction. The church does not condone my compulsions or the compulsions of people with Same Sex Attraction.
3. Note: I’m really tired of people like you throwing the word “Ignorant” and “Bigot” around. I dare you to do that to my face, you “Jamming-Debate-technique” punk, that you are. You will not SHUT ME UP, I will not BE SHUT UP, by using a DEBATE TACTICS, or Your SELF RIGHTEOUS SENSE OF OUTRAGE THAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT TO YOU. I will not stand for that anymore. It is you who are ignorant…ignorant of human nature, ignorant of the dignity of marriage, you are a fascist who puts his sexuality above all other human interest! You are the dangerous person.
4. Sexuality does not and should not have a place in law. The only place in law it SHOULD have is that the law does not say one way or another about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
5. The Church WILL NOT CHANGE FOR YOU. Neither will it change for me. Its doctrines are supernatural and they have NO AUTHORITY to change because they were not written by men.
6. Do not ascribe to me the plight of the homosexual in history past. I was not alive; I do not commit hostile acts and will not against people who define themselves by their sexual proclivities, as confused, crazed and militant they are.
Question: Why homosexuals the only class of sinners who identify with their sin? Why don’t you join the rest of us sinners. Are you the LIVING EMOBIDOMENT OF SAINTS? To deny that there is NO SUCH THING AS SEXUAL SIN, is someone who is so blinded by the sexualization of the culture that they are simply………………Not A Morally Serious Person,………… which given your “Sexual Zealousness” appears to define you quite adequately.

Daniel,

The "Legalistic" nature of the Church can be viewed in this way......"The Devil is in the Details"...thats why the church goes into the details in order to purge the Devil from them.

Awarner1

Catholicsm is so legalistic because no matter how many rules their are to cover every imaginable situation, there are always more situations that arise that no one has ever thought of, that require new and evermore complex rules.

Instead of your flippant remark, "the devil is in the details," how about a twenty first century paradigm of the universe, existence, and mankind, and how about common sense and critical thinking? And how about, question authority?

There is no analogy to the way the church regards gay people, and straight people. The church does not permit sex outside of marrige, and it forbids gay people to marry, and more than forbids, it works diligently and ceaselessly to accomplish its goals against gay people. If the Roman Catholic Church forbid you to marry, and forbit you ever to have sex with anyone, and even if you complied, if the Roman Catholic Church still considered you suspect and intrinsically disordered, then that would be a proper analogy. As I said before, you do not even a remote clue about gay people.

Yes, you are right; I would not say these things to your face; I would punch you in the nose, because, obviously, that is the only language that you understand.

The Catholic Church, and in fact, all conservative Christians and Moslems cannot handle the reality of gay people in the world. Your religion has a GREAT BIG HOLE in it where gay people are concerned. Hello! Shouldn't that tell you something about your TOP-DOWN marching orders, that come from MAN and not from God?

The Catholic Church is a human instituion, created by man, not by God, as you so arrogantly insist. All Catholic hostility against gay people has its origins in the bigotry inside of the human heart, and not from God. Please do not drag God down into the mud, where you CHOOSE to live your life.

The Catholic Church is WRONG on this issue, and YES, I do expect the Catholic Church to CHANGE. It is not unreasonable to expect people to correct themeselves, when they are as wrong as, and so wrong as you are.

This is my expectation of backwared belieiving people, that they must change.

It is not just my expectation; it is the expectation and demand of millions of Catholics, as well.

The church should have never had city contracts from the start.

DC City Council's actions make no sense (but what else is new?). How do you pass a law that you know will force your biggest and most capable partner in performing necessary social services out of compliance with DC law? That's a huge overstep by the council.

"There is no analogy to the way the church regards gay people, and straight people. The church does not permit sex outside of marrige, and it forbids gay people to marry, and more than forbids, it works diligently and ceaselessly to accomplish its goals against gay people. If the Roman Catholic Church forbid you to marry, and forbit you ever to have sex with anyone, and even if you complied, if the Roman Catholic Church still considered you suspect and intrinsically disordered, then that would be a proper analogy. As I said before, you do not even a remote clue about gay people.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen"

Once again, you seem to imply that to be homosexual, one must being living an open and sexually active homosexual lifestyle. Which view refuses to acknowledge the humanness of homosexuals again? Which organization fully welcomes them and challenges to be better humans? And which organization exploits them and their behavior in their war against religion, society and the family?

And, I remind you yet again, that the Church has no problem with homosexuals, but merely homosexual behavior. It also has a problem with some heterosexual behaviors that it routinely teaches, addresses in the public forum and throws its support behind.

"There is no analogy to the way the church regards gay people, and straight people. The church does not permit sex outside of marrige, and it forbids gay people to marry, and more than forbids, it works diligently and ceaselessly to accomplish its goals against gay people. If the Roman Catholic Church forbid you to marry, and forbit you ever to have sex with anyone, and even if you complied, if the Roman Catholic Church still considered you suspect and intrinsically disordered, then that would be a proper analogy. As I said before, you do not even a remote clue about gay people.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen"

Once again, you seem to imply that to be homosexual, one must being living an open and sexually active homosexual lifestyle. Which view refuses to acknowledge the humanness of homosexuals again? Which organization fully welcomes them and challenges to be better humans? And which organization exploits them and their behavior in their war against religion, society and the family?

And, I remind you yet again, that the Church has no problem with homosexuals, but merely homosexual behavior. It also has a problem with some heterosexual behaviors that it routinely teaches, addresses in the public forum and throws its support behind.

Cprperry writes to DITLD:

And, I remind you yet again, that the Church has no problem with homosexuals, but merely homosexual behavior.
-----------------
That is big of the church. However, the bigger problem is that most of the world does not care about that which the RCC condemns or condones. That is of interest only to Catholics.

The bigger problem is that no one elected the bishops to Congress, and yet the RCC is repeatedly sticking its great big nose into legislative business.

SOLUTION: Release the US commitment to separation of church and state. Pass legislation making it illegal for any religious institution to lobby congress.

End nonprofit status for religious institutions. Allow a two-year lead period for these institutions to identify funding sources so as to make up whatever losses they will incur.

Deliver social services using an NGO model.

So if a Christian, Jewish, Muslim congressperson goes to a religious service, said minister/rabbi/imam is never to mention/lobby for the Ten Commandments??

Farnaz,
Religious institutions are prevented from lobbying not to the point that it becomes unpopular but that to the point that its lobbying activities become overwhelming of its core mission. That's the case of all 501c3's.
They are entitled to encourage their members (including members of Congress) to uphold the faith's teachings. They are entitled to speak in the public forum.

Daniel in the lion's den:

The irony of your handle, combined with your position in this thread, is amazing.

Daniel ended up in the lion's den because the king enacted a law that violated God's law...

Of course, you are here to tell us you know what God's will is, not the Catholic Church or--presumably--anyone or anything else (Bible?) that disagrees with you.

cprperry:

Religious institutions are prevented from lobbying not to the point that it becomes unpopular but that to the point that its lobbying activities become overwhelming of its core mission. That's the case of all 501c3's.
They are entitled to encourage their members (including members of Congress) to uphold the faith's teachings. They are entitled to speak in the public forum.
-------------------------------
Yes, quite. That is one of the many problems the Church's nonprofit status, especially, in light of its protections from audits.

Obviously, we must end nonprofit status for religious institutions, as so many have argued time and again.

I am taking the argument further, and not only on this blog. Along with a growing number of others, I want to see legislation prohibiting lobbying on the part of religious institutions.

The current role of a foreign entity the Roman church, as well as our homegrown Fundos in health care will help enormously in the effort to end religionism in the legislature.

A growing constituency of secular believers, agnostics, and atheists are trying to be heard. All that remains is for us to organize. Thus far, activist efforts have been hampered by our failure to put secularization first. That roadblock is being removed. This last roman intrusion may just about get it off the highway.

America will get the churches out of the Congress.

Farnaz:

"a foreign entity the Roman Church"...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, perhaps for further laughs you can recycle the stuff about the Jesuit plot to kill Lincoln, the tunnel being built from Rome to D.C. in time for Al Smith's inauguration; and be sure to include those great Thomas Nast cartoons of the alligator bishops swimming ashore!

By the way, it's the First Amendment, enacted by the no-doubt secretly Catholic-controlled Constitutional Convention and thirteen original states, that safeguards the natural (and dare I say God-given) right of everyone, including Catholics and their leaders, to (a) tell one another and anyone else about legislation, and (b) organize to bring pressure (i.e., dreaded lobbying) to bear on legislators in order to affect the outcome.

Ain't freedom wonderful? Sorry you're against it.

P.S. About that "foreign" stuff...my ancestors have been in this country from before the Revolution, back to the early 1600s. Am I native-born enough for you?

Ah, Fr. Martin Fox,

I thought that foreign entity business might get your attention. Just holdin' the fort, I am, pending the return of Daniel, the prophet.

I have no problem with religious institutions. I do have a problem with their enjoying nonprofit status, and with their protections from audits.

I do believe that given our professed commitment to separation of church and state, we can and will rid the Congress of religionist lobbying. It will take time, but the anger of secularist believers, agnostics, and atheists is enormous, and regardless of what you may think of the, Catholics figure prominently among the secularists of this country.

Ending this unholy mixture of church and state will end a score of problems, and it will happen, Fr. Fox, believe me.

If, indeed, you are a priest, then you might want to visit New York City, and see how the Catholic other half lives. It is they who need your attention, them to whom your church was meant to attend, them, and not the legislature.

DITLD, you said,
"The Catholic Church is WRONG on this issue, and YES, I do expect the Catholic Church to CHANGE. It is not unreasonable to expect people to correct themeselves, when they are as wrong as, and so wrong as you are."

i don't see how they can possibly change. they're pretty much stuck with homophobia. the biblical proscriptions are pretty clear. they can try to be accepting, but "hate the sin, not the sinner" is not acceptance. homophobia is biblical. my heart goes out to gay judeochrislamic people.

It still amazes me that liberals continue to express homosexuals by their behaviors and not their orientation, as if homosexuals aren't people but a movement for them to exploit in the liberal's war against religion and the family.

It still amazes me that liberals continue to express homosexuals by their behaviors and not their orientation, as if homosexuals aren't people but a movement for them to exploit in the liberal's war against religion and the family.

Posted by: cprferry | November 14, 2009 9:49 PM
---------------------
You are a dangerous soul, cprferry. Your kind of oppressor has surfaced throughout history and will resurface until time, itself, ends.

But humanity achieves respite. And it will triumph in this current instance as it has in the past.

Is mutual masturbation a civil right and therefore worthy of protective legislation or a genetic/psychological defect which should be addressed/corrected by the medical research wing of humanity???

'Is mutual masturbation a civil right and therefore worthy of protective legislation or a genetic/psychological defect which should be addressed/corrected by the medical research wing of humanity???'

CCNL, you couldn't be stranger if you tried. Your obsessions and preoccupations would probably be shocking to your spiritual mentor John Dominic Crossan, former Servite priest and retired scholar -who by the way evinced a liberal point of view on more than the life of Jesus, the illiterate/itinerant carpenter and preacher you so often refer to! You neglect to quote Crossan where it suits you and your point of view, however.

Your other oft-quoted Church authority, Father Shillebeeckx is Dutch, if I'm not mistaken - and you know how liberal the Dutch are!!

See below Crossan's views on homosexuality from a previous On Faith column. As regards the separation of Church and State, certain Church apologists are apparently taking their cue from Rome, where the Church has enjoyed their own church operated nation-state behind the walls of the Vatican for a few centuries!

However, we are not in Rome, and are clearly not doing as the Romans do. For an organization that contends against the use of 'artificial' birth control at every opportunity, in a world overrun with poverty, dispair, and people suffering from massive doses of both, the Church's position on the sexual behavior of gays is equally compromised beyond reason......in other words, there is no basis in a rational world for either position.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_dominic_crossan/2007/03/against_nature.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

Clearly this threat by the catholic church has fully exposed roman catholicism for the gutter religion it truly is.

Is mutual masturbation a civil right and therefore worthy of protective legislation or a genetic/psychological defect which should be addressed/corrected by the medical research wing of humanity???

And the answer is??

And once again, we have this:

Hmmm, the NT (the RCC's operating manual) says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians (e.g. Buddhists) or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed?????

Hmmm, "Schaum", where have we seen that ID before? Let us check the list of potential imposters. Indeed, said ID is on the list. Again, be wary of comments on semi-anonymous blogs. This imposter also appears to be the "fronting ID" for said imposter, making offensive comments without the risk of being identified by the moderators.

Be very careful CCNL. We've already had you banned on one blog here. Would you like to try for another?

How base and mean-spirited. Over here we call it the Catholic Archdiocese, overseas we call it the Taliban, or rule by the Ayatollahs. We rail and rant about human rights in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, send our military to fight and die in one oppressive country, and toady to another repressive regime for the favor of Petroleum, while at home we punish roughly 10% of the population for being born with irregular attractions in their psyches.What Fools These Mortals Be.

"Hmmm, the NT (the RCC's operating manual) says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!!"

Another good reading is Acts 15:19-20 which clarifies what from the old law Gentiles should specifically avoid. This is, of course, not to replace the old law or to infringe upon the greater call to serve the Lord by following His will.
Gentiles are required to avoid the unlawful marriages mentioned in Leviticus 18, such as lying with a man as you do with a woman.

Cprferry

The Catholic Church is not welcoming to gay people; it is hostile, extremely so. You do not believe this deception, yourself, do you?

I do not think there is anything wrong with being gay, but there is something wrong with being Catholic, at least, if that means, being anti-gay, for no reason but caprisous exclusion and favoritism. Notice, that as offensive as this might seem to you, it is merely your argument, turned around, in a mirror image, only in the case of my point of view, you are wrong, and I am right.

Your anti-gay agenda is a neurotic compulsion, transferred to you by the twisted and contorted doctrine of Catholic teaching and of the Catholic Church.

Yes, I expect you, and people like you to change and be better; it is for your own good; it is so you can live in peace and good health.

Working to obstruct the progress and happiness of others is no good way to live. Seeking to ruin people, seeking to unsettle families and even destroy families, is not anything to feel good about or be proud of.

You and your Catholic brethren are the ones who define gay peoply be the logistics of sexuality; I consider consider sexual orientation an integral part of the personality, same-sex attraction being the least of it. Sexual orientation cannot be suppressed or erradiated without severly damaging the personality. So why does the Catholic Church persist, then, in its attempt to damage people so, even to the point of suicide, for that is the result of Catholic harrassment of many young gay people.

You are one who sinks low in this argument and seeks to conjure up lurid images of gay sex. That is silly and childish. One could also picture lurid images of straight sex; so what does that prove?

I expect, you, as a Catholic, to change your anti-gay views. Yes, I expect it. And that is part of my argument waged against people like.

Fr_Martin_Fox

I am not Daniel in the Lion's Den of ancient Egypt as portrayed in the Bible, and I do not pretend to be.

I am Daniel in the Lion's Den, Twenty First Century American. You cannot bully me or guilt me, simply because I think what I think and believe what I believe.

You are the one who speaks for God and tells other people what God thinks, wants, feels, and believes, and you are the one who insists that your "opinions" cannot be questioned, and cannot ever change.

But, you do not know. You do not know any better than I, nor any better than anyone who has ever lived, yet you persistently act as you do.

You do not dwell in the twenty first century, but in an imaginary Medieval Kingdom, ruled by a monarch whose power dervies from "divine right." The basis of your moral authority lacks credibility.

All I have to say to you is, if you love gay people, then love them.

Hmmm, Schaum noted:

"Be very careful CCNL. We've already had you banned on one blog here. Would you like to try for another?"

And for what reasons have I been banned ?

And when did Schaum become a moderator??

Again a warning:

Hmmm, "Schaum", where have we seen that ID before? Let us check the list of potential imposters. Indeed, said ID is on the list. Again, be wary of comments on semi-anonymous blogs. This imposter also appears to be the "fronting ID" for said imposter, making offensive comments without the risk of being identified by the moderators.

The word "homo-sexuality" is a clinical almost scientific term. The word "gay" is a much broader term that connotes aspects of personlity.

I notice that religious people almost never use the term "gay" but insist on using the clinical term "homo-sexual."

And I also notice that the word "homophobic" stings religious people who invariably reply that it is just a left-wing, lety word, used only by leftists.

But surely, the Catholic Church, and most churches are "anti-gay" aren't they? That is a fact, isn't it? And to be anti-gay is not merely to be oppose to the physical logistics of sexual positions, but it is to oppose the very persons and personhood of gay people, who cannot have the personal qualities that make them gay erradicated without severly damaging them psychologically.

But of course, no person dwelling in an imaginary Medeival world, looking at the modern world through Medeival eyes could ever understand any of this.

"The homosexual act is evil." It is just a coincidence that all gay people engage in homo-sexual acts, and therefore are all outcast, not as sinners, and not as being somehow mentally ill, but as being "intrinsically disordered."

Religious people like to repeat endlessly, their horrifying cliche, "hate the sin, love the sinner." But I do not believe it.

I believe they hate the sinner. Never, never, never, do you ever hear an anti-gay person say that they love gay people. They say they "love the sinner." This is a passive aggressive statement with a hidden meaning, which gay people well understand.

What is it about the physical logistics of sex between men or between women that make it a sin, and that make gay people intrinsically disordered? What about these particular logistics is animalistic and base, as compared the sexual logistics of straight people?

And by the way, this is a rhetorical question designed to make people THINK, and not to illicit graphic descriptions of the various positions of sex.

Any lurid description of sex between gay people can be compared to equally lurid descriptions of sex between men and women.

Concern with the physical logistics of sex between other people is really no ones business. And for someone to make it their business is rude, insulting, haughty, snobby, and presumtious, that what you imagine other people may be doing does not meet with other people's approval.

Hopefully the first alien nation that contacts planet earth will be super-intelligent hermaphrodites - no need to confuse the Vatican further with same sex issues from outer space, at least when same sex refers to one gender.

But one entity? Wholly endogenous reproductive processes should belay that issue - when ET phones Rome.

On the other hand, implementing birth control ordinances among extra-terrestrials could prove problematical....

Spermatogenesis might conceivably become a popular topic in seminary studies down the road.

It really helps to plan ahead sometimes.

I find it incredible that many Catholics believe Catholic doctrine is forever unchangeable and not open to consideration and revision. I find it likewise incredible that the Catholic exists in such a perfect state that reform cannot be considered. This attitude goes against all that I have ever been taught as an American, where everything is up for discussion and revision, any time, and all the time.

The Catholic Church and the Vatican is what remains of a faded Medieval Empire, now cradled in the benevolgent care of the SECULAR Italian repulic, which alone preserves its integrity and its existence. It is an antique anachronism, increasingly out of sync with the world.

Reform of the Catholic Church is necessary. In the "gay question" is not really about gay people, and it is not really about who is right or wrong; it is really about the power of the Catholic Church to enforce its theology, right or wrong on people. Because if the Church were to admit error on this matter, then could it not also be wrong on other matters? Would the credibility of all doctrine then be suspect?

And what would Catholics do?

They would be forced to think.

I call this unwanted wisdom.

But, as unpleasant as thinking may be, it is necessary.

I do not think that the status of gay people should be sacraficed in what amounts to a contest of wills, as between a parent and a misbehaving child.

For that is what this amounts to, a constest of wills between the church's caprice, and common sense.

'Reform of the Catholic Church is necessary. In the "gay question" is not really about gay people, and it is not really about who is right or wrong; it is really about the power of the Catholic Church to enforce its theology, right or wrong on people. Because if the Church were to admit error on this matter, then could it not also be wrong on other matters? Would the credibility of all doctrine then be suspect?'

DILTD, you've gone right to the heart of the issue with the Catholic Church - while it's official positions on abortion and gay marriage are not doctrinal in the absolutist foundational sense e.g the Resurrection, the Trinity, Original Sin, the Virgin Birth, Assumption of Mary bodily into heaven, Papal Infallibility, etc. they are based on dogmatic Papal declarations that do seem to carry a similar weight.....

If just one fundamental Church doctrine were declared invalid, then all would fall like a house of cards - because of the way each doctrine was built on preceeding doctrines over the centuries.

The Church could change it's position on gay marriage and gay sexuality, birth control, and even abortion, without bringing the house down - since these are not declared infallible doctrines inspired by the Holy Spirit. But your question is the one that needs to be asked - will they indeed change their official perspective on these non-doctrinal matters?

It seems very unlikely at this point - much of it has to do with the position of the present Pope, who was appointed to reinforce Church traditions that, as you say, are genuinely medieval in character. He's only doing what he was elected to do by the College of Cardinals......

Persiflage

I was not raised to be anti-Catholic and I do not consider myself to be anti-Catholic.

But I am observant of the world, and this "Catholicism" presents itself to me as a twisted, contorted, and self-contrdictory sytem of thought.

For example, I am friends with a couple, a man and a woman, who are Catholic. They are not married, but they live together. They go to mass regularly and participate in communion.

I have another friend who was raised Catholic, married in the Catholic Church, divorced, remarried, and has children by her second husband. She also attends mass regularly and takes communion.

Do they not understand all the rules they are violating? (I am not Catholic, but I understand). Or do they understand, but do not believe the rules are valid and do not care?

And what about the Church authorities? Surely they understand the rules that are bing violated. Do they also not believe in the rules? Or do they think the rules are unenforceable, or just not worth enforcing?

To me, an observer, it looks like a great big mess. There are rules, rules, rules piled up to the ceiling, that people ignore, from the top to the bottom. Yet on matters of sexual orientation, oh, suddenly, this is against Catholic teachings and must be condemned.

Which rules are the ones that can be overlooked, and which ones are "important?"

It makes me think of the Soviet Union, where by the end, all of the rules of Marxest dogma were still in effect, but no one, even at the highest levels, believed any of it anymore.

How are non-Catholic people supposed to respond to all of this? I am perfectly content to keep my mouth shut, and look the other way, as most Catholics seem to do. Yet, when the church authorities become so vocal on matters of sexual orientaiton, it is difficult for me to hold my tongue.

What is it about homosexuality that makes it an "abomination"

And for that matter, what is an "abomination?" We might get some sort of understanding of what this word means by examining how every-day people use it in every-day speech.

Oh, I forgot; no one ever uses it at all, ever, except in reference to homosexuality.

So? What does it mean? Does it mean God hates it? Does it mean that it is a sin? or just something that is yucky, as CCNL says. And if so, is there a difference?

I think that the only time that I have ever heard anyone use the word "abomination" (aside from describing gay people) was Mrs. Drysdale, describing her next door neighbors in Beverly Hills, the Clampetts.

I do not think that the Catholic Church not should worry that its dogmatic credibility will be undermined if it revises its dogmas.

Because, simply put, the authority of the Catholic Church is already in an advanced state of disintegration. Many, if not most Catholics already think for themselves, and freely dissent, by their actions and the way they lead their lives, from the teachings of the church. And Catholic officialdom, rather than have their congregations completely disappear, accept this as a fact of life.

Many Catholics are disconnected from their church. Is it acceptable, ever, to point this out, and to discuss it?

... typo's, mispellings, bad grammar, and blurry eyesite ... too many for me to correct ... hopefully, my intended meanings are clear ... my apologies ... Daniel

Even after the RCC and the rest of Christianity's(and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Ba'haism and Paganism) foundations crumble into piles of myth and superstition, gay sexual activity will still be mutual masturbation and therefore still be considered to be unnatural and some kind of defect.

ccnl1

"Even after the RCC and the rest of Christianity's(and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Ba'haism and Paganism) foundations crumble into piles of myth and superstition, gay sexual activity will still be mutual masturbation and therefore still be considered to be unnatural and some kind of defect."

--------------------
Latent homosexuality is an erotic tendency toward members of the same sex which is not consciously experienced or expressed in overt action. The term was originally proposed by Sigmund Freud. According to Freud, "latent" or "unconscious" homosexuality which derived from failure of the defense of repression and and sublimation permit or threaten emergence into consciousness of homosexual impulses, which give rise to conflict manifested in the appearance of symptoms. These symptoms include fear of being homosexual, dreams with manifest and "latent" homosexual content, conscious homosexual fantasies and impulses, homosexual panic, disturbance in heterosexual functioning, and passive-submissive responses to other males.
----------
FREUD defined "homosexual panic" in "Three Essays on Sexuality" (1905). In the last 105 years many researchers have published on homosexual panic symptoms and treatment.

So what if homosexuality is "mutual masturbation?" Isn't this irrelevant to this conversation? or any conversation?

I know that the Catholic Church has a rule against masturbation. But, it seems to have defaulted into a the status of "ok to overlook."

Theology is not a science or a philosophy. It is what men tell other men to believe about God.

Theology evolves over time. It is usually not based on a sincere search for truth by a wandering and curious heart.

Rather, it is often the compromise of a committee, often influenced by external pressures, often political in nature, often under threat of military force.

This is the progress of Catholic theology over centuries. It is so complex that only Catholic scholars can even begin to understand it. It is like the fantasically cobbled together treaties of the European Union's failed Constitution.

To many people it does not make sense. It should be reformed, with a revamped "program" stated clearly for all to understand. For, there is no clearly stated program or purpose of the Catholic Church. It merely exists, by the inertia of its past wealth and political power, as a crumbling and faded anachronism, struggling to maintain itself as a Medeival Institution in a modern world.

Reforming the nature of the Catholic Church is not going to damage it anymore than it is already damaged. It is not going to cause even more people to leave it. Obviously, alot of people have demonstrated loyalty to the Catholic Church and they are going to mass no matter what the Church says or does.

So, why not do the right thing, and do away with its ugly anti-gay agenda?

"Even after the RCC and the rest of Christianity's(and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Ba'haism and Paganism) foundations crumble into piles of myth and superstition, gay sexual activity will still be mutual masturbation and therefore still be considered to be unnatural and some kind of defect."

CCNL (cerebral cortex not located) is winning his fight against mental health. A psychotic break with reality is very close at hand!

"So, why not do the right thing, and do away with its ugly anti-gay agenda?

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen"

Hmm, because every group needs someone they can feel superior to, and the group that is defined as "gay" is small enough that they feel safe to do so? There are too many women who aren't putting up with it anymore. Not saying it's right, but it seems that they need a scapegoat, an "other", to use as the definition of who they can't possibly be!

Once again:

Is mutual masturbation a civil right and therefore protected by legislation or is it a genetic/psychological defect(s) that should be addressed/solved by the global medical research community????

And the answer is??????

ccnl1,
the founders did not address masturbation, but given their valuation of privacy, i suspect they'd say, "it's none of your damn business."

on the other hand state legislatures (especially in the benighted southeast) have taken quite an interest in sexual positions, techniques and roles over the years. i haven't looked into this, but i daresay plain old regular masturbation is probably illegal in parts of alabama for instance...

"And the answer is??????"

---------

Irrelevant.

"Food is good, but given along with a lie it is very destructive in the end. "

----------

Kert1,

That's exactly what I was thinking ... about religious charities whose price for a hot meal is prosyletizing the poor and needy with irrational archiac mythology.

CNNL

Masturbation is rubbing the genitals. Above and beyond that, I don't really see your concern in this.

CCNL wrote:

"Is mutual masturbation a civil right?"

Clearly, you are unacquainted with foreplay.

"Is mutual masturbation a civil right?"

...or is it more like a responsibility?

Hmmm, maybe all birth/psychological defects should be specifically protected by legislation?

'Is mutual masturbation a civil right and therefore protected by legislation or is it a genetic/psychological defect(s) that should be addressed/solved by the global medical research community????'

Personally I'm getting the impression it's only a problem in the Philadelphia suburbs - among aging Catholics misanthropes that had their hand slapped one too many times by the nuns for 'playing with themselves'. We all have to get past our raising at some point or another.....

As another poster suggested, the concept of foreplay was apparently not well covered in those early Catholic sex education classes back in the 1950's.

Is there anything more bothersome than fusty old men full of moral rectitude?? I don't think so......

Persiflage:

"Is there anything more bothersome than fusty old men full of moral rectitude?? I don't think so......"

No, I agree with you...but let us be charitable. Masturbation, mutual or not, is probably the only sex he's ever been able to get. I'm sure he was kind to his mother.