…and this is a 
Wow. I thought our local vets were petty when they threatened to yank scholarships if they weren't allowed to lead prayers in public schools, but now someone has topped them. Who, you may wonder? As if you couldn't guess, the Catholic Church leads the way in small-minded extortion.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
The Catholic Church weighs the lives of tens of thousands of sick, homeless people against the chance to slap down the dignity of gay people again, and obviously the most important thing is to make sure the primacy of heterosexuality is preserved.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Brian | November 12, 2009 1:08 PM
So much for the claim that Christianity and general and Catholicism in particular have an over arching concern for the poor...again.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 12, 2009 1:10 PM
isn't the argument that they are a force of good in the world that they have programs for the poor and such regardless of faith?
Guess they don't even want that anymore.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 12, 2009 1:14 PM
Never mind that.
Catholics are now allowed to believe in space aliens.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Catholics_can_believe_in_alien_life_999.html
Woo hoo!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 12, 2009 1:14 PM
It's never about genuine no-strings charity or heart-felt empathy. No matter the venue or the nature of the effort, it always boils down to proselytizing and conversion. Always.
Posted by: David B
|
November 12, 2009 1:15 PM
From the link 'Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.'
Can they abandon contracts? Not renew them, fine, but abandon them?
Anyway, they shouldn't have contracts, anyway. Good riddance.
David B
Posted by: littlejohn | November 12, 2009 1:15 PM
The religious, especially Catholics, have a bizarre obsession with sex. Why in the world would anyone care what consenting adults do when naked?
Yet they always respond it is we who are obsessed with sex, because we do it, I guess.
It's not doing it, or feeling guilty about doing it, that strikes me as weird.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 12, 2009 1:18 PM
I like the way the councilmembers are responding: they're all channelling Angie Tempura, all like, "Biiiiiitch, pleeeeeze!"
Also, I can't help but giggle at the Archdiocese's failure to grok an important aspect of the First Amendment: if you accept public funds, yes, you DO need to obey secular laws!
So, if the DC Council is learning from this, the lesson is: shit, just don't bring religious institutions into providing social services in the first place. If they really want to look after the poor and disadvantaged, they'll do so without the government's involvement.
Posted by: True Bob | November 12, 2009 1:18 PM
"Why in the world would anyone care what consenting adults do when naked?"
Because they are told not to.
Posted by: ryanm | November 12, 2009 1:20 PM
As a
gay manhuman being this makes me sick to my stomach. But I can't say that I'm surprised.Posted by: Don | November 12, 2009 1:21 PM
What would be the point of running social programmes if you can't use them as leverage?
Posted by: The Pint
|
November 12, 2009 1:21 PM
Wait... what??? Let me get this straight - the Catholic Church is threatening to yank social service programs, programs that help the poor, the downtrodden, the abandoned, you know, all those people who Jesus said should be cared for, because they can't stomach the idea of the District sanctioning a legal partnership between two consenting adults who just happen to share the same sex organs? Not that I should be surprised, but really, following yesterday's shennanigans, this is just further cause for a very stiff drink on my lunch break.
Posted by: ryanm | November 12, 2009 1:22 PM
As a
gay manhuman being this makes me sick to my stomach. But I can't say that I'm surprised.Posted by: hje | November 12, 2009 1:22 PM
End government funding for your faith-based social services with an agenda? Your terms are acceptable.
Of course it would open the door for competitors (evangelical Protestants, Mormons, etc.).
Posted by: Sir Craig | November 12, 2009 1:25 PM
Okay, the Catholic Church is petty - we get that. Catholicism in general is pretty petty, and I for one will never be a part of it ever again. Unfortunately, it is the Church's football and they can go home any time they feel like playing whiney little shits. I can only hope the (oxymoron alert) more sane Catholics feel some kind of shame with this action.
One critique regarding PZ, though, and it's not a minor one: I'm a veteran, as are several of the commenters on your post about the American Legion. Please do NOT confuse vets with private veteran organizations - I don't belong to the American Legion OR the VFW because they push the religious angle above everything else. So when you say, "I thought our local vets were petty..." I'm pretty sure most of the local vets had nothing to do with the AL's nonsense.
Please keep that in mind...
Posted by: phanastasio
|
November 12, 2009 1:25 PM
Have they no decency? This is disgusting.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 12, 2009 1:26 PM
I think they're bluffing! There's no way that they could get away with actually doing that; the blowback would be too great.
Posted by: Michelle R | November 12, 2009 1:27 PM
I often hear people tell me "Yes, but the church still helps poor people. So really, they're not evil."
But see? They only do that if you work their way. They don't care about good for real. They're just dicks.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 12, 2009 1:31 PM
You underestimate how scared the RCC is of homosexual relations.
Posted by: edivimo | November 12, 2009 1:32 PM
I'm catholic because the baptism and I think is time to write a letter to my local church to make my apostasy. I'm morally obliged to do that.
Posted by: Russell | November 12, 2009 1:32 PM
Perhaps the city will appease the Catholics by running a few anti condom ads. That makes Catholics soooo happy.
Posted by: Xenithrys | November 12, 2009 1:37 PM
I seem to remember the Catholic Church pulled the same stunt in the UK a while back, refusing to act as an adoption agency if they had to let gay couples adopt babies. If I remember correctly, the Government told them to pull their heads in.
You can see their dilemma. They want to support adoption, because they insist that all pregnancies should run their course, but they don't want families with two mommies or two daddies.
I agree with previous posters: faith-based government-funded social welfare is never going to work because there's always a (not so) hidden agenda. But it's always going to be an attractive option to governments because it's likely to be cheaper in staff costs.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 1:38 PM
Reminds me of the English church stropping about having to give children to "Teh Gays" as part of equality in marriage laws and adoption rights.
Apparently someone thought it wise to let our church look after vunerable children. They said that they would stop all child adoption services if "Teh gays" were also allowed to adopt through them as then they couldn't remain bigots.
Because lets face it, getting children into good homes with a loving family is NOT their agenda. The children are merely things to be used for getting your way.
It's true in both cases that the church has it's ball and it can go home if it wants to but then they should drop this ridiculous pretense that they are a caring, selfless organisation that is "a force for good in this world".
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 1:38 PM
I agree that the RCC is bluffing. They can't afford the negative PR from withdrawing the aid.
Am I too cynical in thinking that the DC politicians know that they are bluffing, and probably asked them to do so to give them a good reason to torpedo the proposed law? It makes people crusading for equal rights into the bad guys, insisting that their civil rights are more important than feeding the homeless.
Posted by: SEF | November 12, 2009 1:40 PM
If the Catholic church gets any public money from the district for running these services, then it's a fair bet that someone else could do it much better anyway! Tell the Catholics to get stuffed and institute a policy that religious nutters should never ever be hired to run anything (ie as a religious organisation - and not necessarily when acting as individuals who somehow happen to be OK people despite being religious).
Posted by: Russell | November 12, 2009 1:40 PM
Plus - I dont thing the Catholics should be running the social service programs for the district anyway.
Posted by: Mark | November 12, 2009 1:41 PM
I hope the church makes good on their threat after this legislation passes. I want them to be the topic of discussion for the rest of the nation. After all, we are all extremely aware that this cult is not what they portray themselves to be. They worship a dead man on a stick, for crying out loud. They worship a deity that casually killed every human on the planet, less two handfuls on an ark.
The topic of discussion should be how horrible this group is to other people when they think their authority is being eroded.
Posted by: Kraid
|
November 12, 2009 1:50 PM
I'm reminded of the overwhelming smackdown that Hitchens and Fry delivered on the topic of whether the Catholic church was a force for good in the world.
Yeah, the Church is happy to deliver good to your front door, so long as it's allowed to smuggle indefensible evil in through the back.
Posted by: H.H. | November 12, 2009 1:52 PM
littlejohn @ #6:
"The most unnatural of the sexual perversions is chastity." --Aldous HuxleyPosted by: Germaine
|
November 12, 2009 1:57 PM
I have taken a look at the actual bill in the City Council (http://www.davidcatania.com/publicdocuments/Signed_Marriage_Bill.pdf) and I can see the paragraph the RCC is taking issue with. It's paragraph (e) on page 3 of the PDF. It basically says that religous organizations DO NOT have to provide services related to marriage if goes against their particular doctrine, UNLESS they provide such services to the general public. Also, the paragraph mentions that NO penalty from the City would happen unless such services are indeed provided to the general public. The bill, as far as I can see, makes no mention of charities in general, only of services or facilitites related to marriage. So, I wonder if anyone in the RCC has actually read the bill.
Posted by: wackadoodle | November 12, 2009 1:58 PM
I've asked this question on two other articles about this story and havent gotten an answer:
Does the Catholic Church in DC already deny all the services they don't want to let the gays use to all non-catholics? If they are allowed to bar any non-catholics or non-christians from receiving their services they might have a legal leg to stand on. Is that so or is my suspicion correct and the catholics gladly gave their services to jews, athiests and other 'sinners' but started citing 'religious beliefs' the moment they had to treat gays as equals?
Posted by: Rev Matt | November 12, 2009 2:01 PM
I'm always in favor of religious partisans marginalizing themselves. If you want to play in the public square, you have to accept the public square rules. If you don't want to do that, you're welcome to not participate.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 12, 2009 2:03 PM
Why didn't they think of this sooner, and demand that -
* Roe v. Wade be aborted
* crucifixes be mounted on every classroom wall
* age of consent be lowered to five
- or the bodies will pile up on Pennsylvania Ave!
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 12, 2009 2:15 PM
Full of win. It's tragic that double entendre is so appropriate.
Posted by: Dinah | November 12, 2009 2:15 PM
Catholic Charities stopped offering adoption services in MA because it's legal for gay people to adopt and they were told they couldn't discriminate.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
Catholic Charities also won't allow those offering HIV/ AIDS counseling and education in their programs to advise people to use condoms, and in Africa they atively discourage people from using condoms.
Posted by: BeamStalk | November 12, 2009 2:19 PM
They are trying to influence local politics. That sounds like reason enough to revoke tax exempt status for the church.
Posted by: Jarred C.
|
November 12, 2009 2:24 PM
For years I've been asking this question, and I've yet to get an answer that makes sense:
"What does sex (between consenting adults) have to do with morality?"
People keep telling me how homosexuality is immoral and wrong. I keep hearing how you can't do this, and you can't do that. Why? What's wrong with it?
People tell me that it's unnatural, but this is such a horrible argument on so many levels. 1) Industrial chemical plants are also "unnatural," but we don't cry about the immorality of producing Tylenol or ibuprofen. 2) We see it in other species, beyond our own, thereby showing it is "natural."
I'm not even getting into the epistemology or etymology of the word "natural."
Beyond the natural part, there's also the legal part, here in American. We live in a secular and pluralistic country. Therefore, we have to accommodate (and enforce) the same rights (and laws) to all cultures, without invoking religion. Due to this non-religious aspect, I ask the question that demands to be answered:
"Why is sex wrong?"
Posted by: HB Desiato | November 12, 2009 2:24 PM
I think the Catholic Church is in violation of federal eeoc laws and should therefore lose it's tax exempt status.
"Number One, Make it so."
Posted by: Steve | November 12, 2009 2:25 PM
Wow, if they're this "moral" with the benefit of their religious values, imagine what they'd be like without them!!
;)
Posted by: Anri
|
November 12, 2009 2:31 PM
Ok, I'm confused here. Which bit of what they are doing (feeding people or opposing TEH GEH) is part of the 'net benefit' to the world?
Could someone pop on by and explain this?
Thanks in advance!
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 12, 2009 2:36 PM
No thanks. I don't want the nightmares. Knowing what they do already is quite enough.
Posted by: catgirl | November 12, 2009 2:46 PM
I think PR is the least of their concerns. They had no qualms about excommunicating people who helped a 9 year-old rape victim get an abortion because she was pregnant with twins and her health was in danger. Just look at the crazy Pope they picked most recently. They certainly didn't seem to care about PR when they spread lies about condoms causing AIDS in Africa. And anything they do now will pale in comparison to the child sew abuse scandals. Their public image is already dismally low and they are losing members in hoards. Yet they still don't seem to care about PR at all. This case will be no different.
Posted by: merlin | November 12, 2009 2:48 PM
Let them pull out and show their true colors. The should be grateful religion gets away with unconstitutional tax exempt status. Maybe someday we will do the right thing and tax religion as the business it is.
Posted by: Flea | November 12, 2009 2:52 PM
Jesus'n'Mo take on this:
http://bit.ly/1SzFxn
Posted by: middlekk | November 12, 2009 2:53 PM
So. Am I supposed to be upset over this?
Or, is this an indication that this kind of service has been turfed over to the religionists for too long?
Isn't there a government agency somewhere that has responsibility for this kind of thing? Why are they abrogating their responsibility?
Yes, it's abhorrent that the religionists will hold their services hostage to their dogma. But it's also unsurprising.
Time for someone else to step in. When we stop asking the religionists to do this kind of "dirty work" for us, we'll be a lot further along the path of making them completely superfluous.
No religious group should get public funding to provide social services to the public.
Posted by: joe_schmoe | November 12, 2009 2:59 PM
"... and obviously the most important thing is to make sure the primacy of heterosexuality is preserved."
Add "except in the priesthood." to the end of that sentence and I agree with it completely!
Posted by: heironymous | November 12, 2009 3:03 PM
Score another point for Hitchens and Frey in their debate.
Posted by: The Ex-Christadelphian | November 12, 2009 3:04 PM
And the Church of Mithras keeps marching on . . .
They need to do more stuff like this in this age of computers and instant communications. Any shot these days is a shot heard 'round the world. Good job, RCC!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 3:08 PM
-No religious group should get public funding to provide social services to the public.-
It certainly shouldn't be dictating government policy for public healthcare.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 12, 2009 3:12 PM
I'll take my mother to her Catholic church this Sunday and even provide her with a bag of groceries as they have a food drive this weekend. I hope the food goes to the hungry - no matter what their sexual orientation.
This latest event in DC just shows how obsessed Catholics are over sexual issues. It shouldn't matter to them that gays and lesbians of whatever belief or nonbelief get married, but they have to exercise what little power they have to shit on people.
Posted by: middlekk | November 12, 2009 3:21 PM
@48...yes, I agree completely.
But my point goes quite a bit further. As an atheist, I think it's quite hypocritical of me to expect that the religionists should provide services to the poor, under-served, troubled, needy, etc, while at the same time we complain how they're the source of all evil in this world.
The fact that they DO provide such services, even at the point of a dogmatic sword, is evidence that our assertions about them are not entirely correct.
The only solution, as I see it, is for ALL of the services provided by religion to be taken over by secular organizations. We don't need the church to do blood collection - the Red Cross (a secular organization despite their symbol) does just fine. Why should adoption services or any other service - ESPECIALLY those having to do with the welfare of children - be any different?
We are enabling religion and religionism to exist when we rely on them to provide essential social services. And provide them with public funding. So, they take our money and then give god the credit.
It's time to move on to a different paradigm.
Posted by: Meathead | November 12, 2009 3:22 PM
@3: They had to change their policy on aliens since it's so obvious that Pope Ratzo is from space.
Posted by: noisician | November 12, 2009 3:25 PM
Hey, I'm with the Catholic church on this one. The only thing wrong with what they've done is that they haven't taken it far enough. Not only should they turn their soup kitchens & adoption agencies over to secular organizations, they should close all their churches and leave town altogether!
Posted by: mothwentbad | November 12, 2009 3:33 PM
Maybe I can call in "churches exist in a 10-mile radius" to work until further notice and see how that goes. One would hope that I'd stop getting paychecks.
Posted by: raven | November 12, 2009 3:54 PM
Not really seeing anything coherent about this one.
Aren't the churches supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner? And how many same sex married couples do they employ anyway? And if some of their employees are gay, so what if they get married? Pulling out of social services isn't going to stop them.
And if I'm reading this right, they are getting paid by the state to provide these social services. So if they decline the money, someone else will get it to provide the same services.
The RCC hasn't been able to recruit good priests for a long, long time. No one wants to be a life long virgin any more. What is the point? It is starting to show. Running mental health and IQ tests on the hierarchy might be rather shocking. They might in fact be lucky to average 100, the median IQ.
Posted by: Patrick | November 12, 2009 4:02 PM
If I were head of that district, I'd simply play hardball. For once, it should be common sense not to give in to attempted extortion and especially not if the racketeer does not have a leg to stand upon.
We all know, that the church sees charity only as a way to advertise (and usually, they find one way or the other to pass the bill to someone else). That's not something to drop lightly.
Posted by: Pablo | November 12, 2009 4:05 PM
I remember when I was young in Catholic Church, we used to sing a song that went, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me..."
(later they changed "brothers" to "people")
Whenever I hear them complain, "OMG, we can't serve TEH GEY!" all I can think is, "Whatsoever you do..."
(I also realize that this is based on Jesus's teachings in the NT, but this is the catholic church we are talking about, so expecting them to be familiar with the bible is reaching; however, older catholics will certainly recognize the song)
Posted by: MadScientist | November 12, 2009 4:12 PM
The rule I would like to invoke in this case is: Do not negotiate with terrorists (actually as that phrase stands the rule is broken all the time - it should be 'do not concede to terrorist demands except to buy time to position yourself for an offensive or to achieve a peaceful resolution in which the terrorists acknowledge and subject themselves to the law'). Write back and say "gee, we're terribly sorry you can't continue that work, but we're grateful for what little you may have done in the past."
Posted by: MadScientist | November 12, 2009 4:18 PM
I'd just like to point out that the church is implying that it will push tens of thousands of undisciplined disadvantaged children onto the streets after telling them "you know, we can't feed you or give you shelter anymore because those evil libertarians aren't bashing teh gayz like god tells us to". So in the minds of the downtrodden, it will be society at large and not the church which is the evil behemoth. Just keep those guns away from little orphan Annie.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 12, 2009 4:47 PM
The catholic church tips their hand. Providing social services is clearly a platform to further their religious agenda, not a philanthropic undertaking.
Secular governments cant keep entrusting the well being of their citizens to religious terrorists.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 12, 2009 5:04 PM
Read about this this morning. I note that they have made this threat at the start of the time of year when social services are needed more than any other due to winter cold, and directly before their biggest holiday, the one they always complain there's a war against, and the one in which they never fail to inform us how magnanimous they are. It all dovetails nicely with that Hitchens/Fry video you posted over the weekend. How many of us today have gone back to replay the points the Catholic priest and MP made in defense of the church, and consequently had a hearty laugh? I'm guessing a few. It's the first thing I thought of when I saw the story.
The verdict has been in for a very long time. It was never about good works or gathering money and goods for the poor. It was about punching tickets to Heaven Central Station. May the truth behind their supposedly sanctimonious charity (at least some in their group) be known.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 12, 2009 5:13 PM
Does the RCC still claim to be a "force for good" in the world?
Posted by: BdN | November 12, 2009 5:13 PM
1/2 OT
Another example of how religion is a force for good in the world :
Five men from the same family, father and sons, three being lay ministers in the Community of Christ church, are accused of "forcible sodomy, rape with a child younger than 12 and use of a child in a sexual performance [...] bestiality, forcing children into fake marriages with relatives and making an 11-year-old have an abortion, date from 1988 to 1995".................................................
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-12-child-sexual-abuse-charges_N.htm?csp=34
Posted by: Newfie | November 12, 2009 5:14 PM
Religion as a political tool? Say it ain't so.
Posted by: Vanessa | November 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Sigh, this is why no matter what kind of charitable good a religion does (and admittedly, their charities accomplish much), you still have to look at them with skepticism and suspicion. I would praise Catholicism's slooow, painful, embarrassing descent into obsolescence in the States if a thousand fundie sects weren't springing up Hydra-like to take their place. Would that the death of a religion would leave reason and true compassion in its wake.
How does civil rights towards gays prevent them from sheltering the homeless exactly? I guess for the same reason I refused to donate to a local Catholic soup kitchen when I heard their Priest give a talk on the evils of contraception. Plenty o' secular aid organizations to give to.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 12, 2009 5:30 PM
It's such a mystery that people are abandoning the Catholic Church left right and center, droves becoming atheist every day.
Also the Catholic Church just lost their license to blame other people for the "moral collapse" of society, as it's now blatantly clear to anyone who hasn't got their heads up their backside, were the epicenter for this supposed collapse is.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 12, 2009 5:32 PM
I agree that the RCC is bluffing. They can't afford the negative PR from withdrawing the aid.
They're not bluffing. They pulled this in Boston, and the Bishops forced CC to withdraw from a contract with the Commonwealth--providing adoption services for children who were living in group homes and the like--rather than allow gay folks to adopt. The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities voted unanimously to keep the contract and to allow gay folks to adopt. Not the Bishops, though. Once the Legislature told Willard Romney and the Bishops to bugger off (they tried to get an exemption for the Church), the Bishops forced a withdrawal from the contract.
The Bishops are bigoted thugs.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 12, 2009 5:36 PM
Behold the magisterium in all their splendour...hoisting their tacky dresses thus displaying their spindly hairy legs and running as fast as physics allows taking their ball with them cos the nasty folk won't let them be bigots...
'poor people be damned...god will look after 'em !'
Another nail in the coffin that is jesuit love!
They are slowly but irrevocably digging their own grave...let 'em!
It might force the secular services to pull their finger out!
Posted by: Mr. Atheist | November 12, 2009 5:41 PM
My blog post (4th paragraph) may help everyone understand why the Catholic church hates gay right so much. Leave a comment. (Sorry for self promotion, but a lot of people here seem at a loss for why the RCC would act like this.)
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | November 12, 2009 6:22 PM
I read in someones blog that their daughter came back from backpacking with friends in Australia with a useful phrase. When any of them started to moan or whine all the others would exclaim "Harden the fuck up!"
Every time I hear some organisation overclaiming their victimhood, or threatening to take their ball away, I think of that very phrase. It seems that the Washington branch of the Roman Catholic church is this weeks HTFU Award winner.
Posted by: SteveM | November 12, 2009 7:09 PM
This seems to have been misplaced into the "don't Die Gay in RI" thread.
If this is truly the case then I have to agree with the RCC, that the city should not be able to force the RCC to change its qualification for marriage. That is, the question of gay marriage is one of civil law, the 1st amendment bars the state from interfereing with how religions want to define it.
Posted by: SteveM | November 12, 2009 7:16 PM
re #70:
No, wait. What I meant to say is that in this one case, they are being unfairly demonized. Being barred from providing services is not the same as threatening to withdraw services.
Posted by: Cowcakes
|
November 12, 2009 7:36 PM
Faith, Hope and Charity are three precepts on which christain churches are supposedly based and hold dear.
Once again they show most emphatically by there actions that it is most certainly not the case.
Posted by: Armand K.
|
November 12, 2009 7:47 PM
This is hardly something new. It might be new in America (I'm not very familiar with the RCC situation in USA), but the Catholic Comintern in Vatican City repeatedly expressed similar points of view.
I can't find it right now, but a few months ago I've read on their website an older document (around 2003, I think) where they were whining that poor catholic charities (with Caritas leading the flock I suppose) are denied the right to participate to international humanitarian actions. Because the international organizations (UNICEF, UNHCR, etc.) and national governments (mainly US) deny them this right by including a clause that requires participating NGOs to act religiously neutral; hence, they're not allowed to proselytize. And because the same entities required promoting and distributing condoms as a mandatory part of the program; another thing the RCC can't allow, considering their official POV that condoms contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS and sinful behaviour.
Similar conditionals seem to be the dominant Catholic mindset as far as public policy is concerned. They would do charity, but the evil ones don't allow them. Because the evil ones require they do things contrary to human dignity. And their definition of human dignity doesn't include pre- or extra-marital sex; nor those filthy pederasts; nor refraining from giving a lecture on salvation and hell with each bowl of soup.
Conditional charity of this sort is no charity at all. It's blackmail. And the lowest kind of blackmail, too: the kind that uses the happiness, health and life of human beings as bargain chip for their propaganda.
Posted by: Mack | November 12, 2009 7:51 PM
No, the church isn't being unfairly demonized. They were told that if they wanted to keep a contract to provide social services to the city, using government money, then they couldn't discriminate. They didn't have to force their priests to sully their pristine lily white hands by performing gay marriages, but they did have to honor the rights of same sex partnerships, namely allowing same sex couples to have medical/employee benefits, allow them to adopt, those types of things.
Basically, acknowledge that those couples have rights under the law, that supersede the church's right to discriminate.
Posted by: B2
|
November 12, 2009 8:04 PM
I wonder how Anne Widdecombe would justify this further example of the Catholic Church being a force for "good" in the world.
Posted by: Demonhype | November 12, 2009 8:07 PM
First veterans, now the poor and needy. I wonder who they'll throw on the grenade next?
I see Operation Human Shield is well under way.
All their other tactics have failed, after all. This may be all they have left.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 12, 2009 8:22 PM
You know, I remember a while back when I called the RCC a "hate cult" and some other commenter (can't remember who) was like, "Are you crazy?"
This is what I was talking about. This, and Gov. Carcieri and Maine's Church pushing Prop 1....
The RCC is an anti-gay, and anti-woman, hate cult. It really is that simple.
Posted by: bastion of sass | November 12, 2009 8:32 PM
The response of DC officials should be:
Oh, gee, going so soon? Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave.
These are services that can, and should, be provided either by the government or secular non-profits.
Posted by: Wayfarer | November 12, 2009 10:09 PM
Would being made the executer of the estate or having the power of attorney be a way around this siliness?
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 12, 2009 10:13 PM
Whether the CC is bluffing or not I think matters little. Even bluffing makes them look like a cadre of heartless, bigoted assholes. After all, who would make light of refusing social services to thousands people in need in the nation's capital right before (or during depending on the xmas mania near you) the holidays? Do they think that the people receiving the care would revolt against the government demanding the CC comply because services would be lost?
The best the CC can hope for here is to whitewash the incident by saying some unauthorized member blurted this to the press, and that the CC is not truly considering this. If they are considering this and it came from high up the CC chain, there's no question what their actions say.
Posted by: Keanus
|
November 12, 2009 10:48 PM
I guess the Catholic Church and the American Legion in Bloomington are joined at the hip, if not more substantially. Both are threatening in a Christian snit to withdraw from long standing efforts on their part to benefit others, revealing them for what they really are: propaganda arms of nefarious conspiracies. I really find their hypocrisy unbelievable.
And on this very instance, Keith Olbermann had a guest, an ecumenical preacher, on tonight who with a smile raked the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington over the coals for hypocrisy. It's all part and parcel of their cynical efforts to deny all Americans universal health care if they can't be allowed to compel all Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic, to follow Catholic teachings. I guess their sermons and homilies are unpersuasive. What amoral bastards.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | November 13, 2009 12:56 AM
DiscoveredJoys @69 (appropriately): I think "Harden the fuck up!" is something you really don't want to be shouting at Catholic priests. Just a gut feeling.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 13, 2009 1:39 AM
Wonderful story. I mean, if people weren't too sure about what "faith-based initiative" means, or what bad sides it can have: now you know.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 13, 2009 2:36 AM
*crosspost from the thread everlasting*
You know, and then there is hope somethimes, at least outside the US. This news just in :
European court of human rights declares crucifixes in classrooms in Italy could disturb children
Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 2:55 AM
RCC have been playing that game since before the inquisition, just another day at the office for them.
A touch of causal blackmail, and they get what they want, always worked in the past.
The main reason they dirty their habits...as if they need dirtying any-more then is normal...is the publicity generated can be distributed both to their own minions...to be seen as actually being holier then the secular authority...and to the unconvinced that catoliks are good guys and religion especially catolik religion is the way to go!
It is just that, Public relations.
They do not actually care about the contracts any more then they care for the poor.
But it is a lucrative scam in souls contaminated with jesuit drool.
That is the downside for them they lose the ability to arrange a little army of converts to disseminate the 'word' on the street.
They will lose a sub-society of folks that have no real choice but to accepting the jesuit shilling.
That is small beer compared to the jesuit feel good advertising they get from such an enterprise though.
That is the loss to the catoliks...the boast.
Point boils down to the fact that they either as a cult or a bigoted movement not allowed to flout the law of the land.
That is the principle that must be maintained, the law.
Catoliks are wheedling and mewling that they are exempt cos jeebus is homophobic obviously, and they are tied to the salvation principle.
A few more missions having to withdraw from contracts or even better not being offered them because they are displaying an illegal attitude is the only recourse to make the fucktards grow up...
Well done the NY district for standing up to these cretins.
Now if only a secular task force can take over and deliver 'real' relief to these folk then the world would be a more rational place.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 13, 2009 2:57 AM
@bastion of sass #78:
"These are services that can, and should, be provided either by the government or secular non-profits."
Yet over the past 80 years the catholic church in particular has fought very hard to minimize the government's involvement in such activities. "Oh, we're old pros at this - you couldn't possibly do as good a job as we do." "Oh, by the way, do you realize it costs us $80k per year to look after this orphan?" I've never seen it as anything other than a scheme for the church to get their grimy hands into the public coffers and to have the tax payers fund their evangelical activities. There are probably individuals who actually believe in what they do and try to do good - but the organization they work for has a different agenda.
Posted by: John Morales | November 13, 2009 2:58 AM
Rorschach, the reference to Italy and crucifixes reminds me of the Don Camillo books.
Often at the end of a tale, Don Camillo gets (personally) forgiven by the Jesus on his church's crucifix for many an escapade, because the ends justified the means and he did stuff out of righteousness.
But it's nice to see that times, they are achangin'.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 13, 2009 3:00 AM
They do something evil like this and still claim to be the moral pillar of our society?!
But where is Pilty to start foaming from his mouth at this post?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 3:04 AM
But where is Pilty to start foaming from his mouth at this post?
Check the dungeon.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 13, 2009 3:09 AM
There's something I haven't heard for a long time !
There were Don Camillo movies around, with Fernandel, has anyone else ever seen them ?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 13, 2009 3:45 AM
As far as I recall, Don Camillo was a brand of really cheap sherry and port in Australia - not sure if it's still around. Takes me back...
Posted by: maureen brian | November 13, 2009 3:49 AM
BBC Radio 4 did some of the Don Camillo stories in the last 2 or 3 years, with Joss Ackland as Jesus, wheeled in to forgive him at the end of the half hour. Highly enjoyable.
Someone who knew his way around BitTorrent or similar sites better than I do might still be able to find them.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 4:22 AM
#86
"Yet over the past 80 years the catholic church in particular has fought very hard to minimize the government's involvement in such activities. "Oh, we're old pros at this - you couldn't possibly do as good a job as we do." "Oh, by the way, do you realize it costs us $80k per year to look after this orphan?"
Yes indeed....pity being is that they also play the same game overseas in the third world.
That took a nose dive in their party attitude in Ireland recently, safe to say they will never ever be forgiven for those transgressions.
It was always known, but traditionally blind eyed by secular authorities so now they have lost that particular skirt to hide behind although they are still trying by twisting the nuts of their victims both in government and in populace!
They are one of the main recipients and distributors of aid globally most of which is governmentally sponsored.
They are getting their heels nipped by the fundagelicals in a few areas these days, and are getting concerned about falling profits and revenue, financial and spiritual.
So much so it is possible RC churches are closing doors in the USA at a greater rate then they are comfortable with.
33 RCC's closed in Albany for example at the beginning of the year...and the trend is accelerating, a few other cults are also losing ground so all in all, and after 2000 odd years of contamination the poison that is religion in general and RC in particular is being slowly drained.
Coupled with falling membership of the sexually dysfunctional crow club and less converts on a global basis pound for pound, and what with the growing negative publicity, a thing unheard of a decade ago!, they are like a rather comatose rabbit caught in the headlights of an on-coming juggernaut of rationalisation.
Benny baby is not the salvation they had hoped for, trying to maintain the old dogma is not the glowing success they had imagined in their hysteria.
The RC church is now more then ever losing credence and fucktards like Bishop Vasa are openly pushing creationist lies and falsehoods.
http://culbreath.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/bishop-robert-vasa-challenges-evolutionists/
And look how the congregation coos with delight!
Mind you I never ever thought that the RC church accepted evolution anyway...that was a pragmatic attempt to appear reasonable...privately they hate the point and always will as long as delusion is their god.
Coupled with gits like Bishop Richard Williamson the stock of RC is in free fall...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,606323,00.html
And the fall out was toxic for Benny...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/holocaust-denier-vatican-pope-benedict
They are increasingly being exposed as the out of date and out of touch organisation they have always been, but they are slowly losing the slipping modesty blanket they traditionally cowered behind, their ugliness is very disturbing, and that ugliness is now on public view like it has never been before...people are taking note!
Posted by: Walton | November 13, 2009 5:12 AM
Banning Piltdown was unreasonable. While he had a rather tenuous connection to reality, and held some very unpleasant views, he was also intelligent, articulate and interesting to talk to. He wasn't a troll by any stretch of the imagination. And it's particularly unreasonable to have banned him without even announcing it, or inviting comments from the regular readers.
It is, of course, Professor Myers' privilege to ban whoever he likes; there's nothing I can do about it. And normally I have no quibble with his decisions, since most of those banned have been genuine trolls. But Piltdown wasn't. There's a difference between expressing deranged views and being a troll.
Posted by: John Morales | November 13, 2009 5:34 AM
Walton, this is one of those times where I think you should qualify your opening conclusion:
This is your opinion, and I give you credit that you've justified it to your own satisfaction.
What did the ever-dwindling L-shaped memeplex in you say about PZ being unreasonable in running his own personal blog as he sees fit, and to ban anyone he sees fit?
(That's rhetorical. Answer only if you wish to.)
Then my imagination exceeds yours.
You might wish to re-read his "Dungeon" page and note that being generic trolling is only one possible reason.
... other than expressing your concern, evidently.
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Clint Burky | November 13, 2009 7:46 AM
How anyone could stand up and argue "is the catholic church a force for good in the world" is beyond me.
Measly hatred and death inspiring assholes!
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 8:50 AM
Actually, it doesn't. The Church only threatens to stop operating social services for the District. These services don't require the Church to operate them, and the Church does not threaten to stop providing social services on its own account.
Why does the Catholic Church operate social services for the District in the first place? Doesn't Myers oppose "faith based initiative" programs that outsource taxpayer financed services to religious institutions? I haven't checked the archives, but I'll wager he does. Does he favor these programs only when Catholics refuse to participate to avoid extending family health insurance benefits to gay couples?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 8:54 AM
I'd rather end the city's relationship with the Church, period.
Posted by: Lynna | November 13, 2009 11:29 AM
Here's a comment from a true-blue-Catholic. It was posted on the exmormon.org site and contains a dig against the mormons also. Bizarro World revealed:
Sounds like a great excuse for immoral persecution of gays, for letting the poor suffer as God meant them to suffer, etc.
Posted by: Mark Townsend | November 13, 2009 8:14 PM
REAL
CALM
WILL
COME
WHEN
TRUE
LOVE
DOTH
STOP
THEM
THAT
WILL
KILL
FOLK
FLAT
DEAD
EVEN
LIKE
UNTO
DEER
MEAT
Posted by: Heatherly | November 14, 2009 11:03 AM
(/delurk)
Having used CC of DC for my clients in the past (foster care social work), and since I use CC of Maryland frequently, I confess that I'm not sure this is a bluff--and that CC of DC might have an edge over DC. Saying CC should not provide social services is all well and good, but that needs to be backed up by the District putting in the enormous amounts of money and time it would take to replace what CC does.
And while it might be nice to think that CC is incompetent due to its religious ties, I'm afraid that isn't really accurate. I've been a social worker for over ten years in Maryland, and CC of Maryland has consistently provided better services for my clients than other private organizations. In Maryland (and I'm fairly confident this is the same in DC), they also are the *only* provider for some services.
I even worked for a branch of CC of MD for a time, despite my extreme non-Catholicness. Nobody cared. The top leaders of the organization might be bigoted, but the majority of the line staff and management are individuals (mostly non-Catholic, AND a significant number that are openly gay) who want to provide quality services to those in need.
And, to be honest, there's a reason why gov agencies use private contractors for multiple aspects of social services. The gov agencies lack the time, money, and competency to provide them. I'd love for there to be other options--in my current city, the *ONLY* homeless shelter is operated by a religious group--but I also know that gov agencies are barely keeping the social services they currently provide above water. (as evidenced by my current 10% pay cut, hiring freeze, furloughs and service reduction days)
I think this situation is awful, but I think the solution is a lot more complicated than it seems.
(/relurk)
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 11:44 AM
This guy is not a "true blue Catholic" and does not reflect the position of the Church. The modern Church does not advocate criminalizing homosexual acts, and it has not threatened to stop rendering any social services. It has only threatened to cease administering social services for the District of Columbia through "faith based initiatives" entangling state sponsored services with Church sponsored services.
I thought most atheists opposed this entanglement under any circumstances anyway, so I don't see the problem. Both the District and the Church will continuing providing social services as they see fit if and when this relationship ceases.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 12:00 PM
No one is saying that, except the people misreporting this story.
No. The District already puts in most of the money being discussed here. CC is a minority contributor to these particular services, and it can and will continue contributing outside of the DC sponsored institutions.
Right. I've also known Catholic organizations and other mainline religious organizations to employ openly gay people, complete with health insurance benefits. The issue here is insurance coverage for gay partners of employees, benefits the organizations don't provide to platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings or adult children living with their parents.