The Cathoholic

D.C.Catholic Charities Ends Spousal Benefits

Today, the Washington Post and local blogs reported that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington has  informed employees that spousal benefits will no longer be offered to future employees or the future spouses of present employees. The agency's new policy comes in the wake of the D.C. Council's recent vote to approve same-sex marriage--a move that becomes law tomorrow. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. had warned late last year that the D.C. council's excessively narrow religious exemption could make it impossible for Catholic Charities to be in compliance with city contracts. In February, Catholic Charities closed its foster care and adoption services. Critics of Archbishop Wuerl's position had argued that he should adopt the so-called "San Francisco option" that provided health benefits to one other person residing in an employee's household. Approved by then Archbishop Levada of San Francisco, the policy sought to avoid any explicit support for same-sex civil unions that had been approved by the city. However, Archbishop Wuerl contended that the legal and political context in the District was different: the council's language requiring all city contractors to be in compliance with the new same-sex marriage law would require the church to affirm such unions--a move that would contradict Catholic teaching on marriage.

Here's my piece on the issue in the National Catholic Register, published a few days later. By then Chief Justice John Roberts had refused a request by opponants of gay marriage to stay the  law. Yesterday, jubilant gay and lesbian couples lined up yesterday to get their marriage licenses.

D.C. Same-Sex Marriage Vote & Religious Freedom

In the wake of the D.C. City Council vote approving legal same-sex marriage, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. is poised to make a drastic retreat from its work with the needy. Why? Because the proposed law, which must still be approved by Congress, provides a narrow exemption for church-run social agencies. Archbishop Wuerl has refused to provide benefits to spouses in same-sex unions and he will not approve the placement of children with same-sex couples.

The archbishop has been criticized by gay rights activists, but also by some local Catholics who argue that he should adopt the "San Francisco option," and simply provide benefits to some other individual residing in an employee's household. Wuerl, however, does not believe this is an acceptable solution. Check out my article on this breaking news in the National Catholic Register.

Church v. State: Same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C.

For years, legal expects on religious freedom have warned of the potential threat posed to religious freedom by legalizing same-sex marriage. Some state same-sex marriage laws include robust exemptions for religious institutions and individuals, others don't. In the nation's capital, the City Council's bill included a narrow exemption--according to the ACLU. This week, The Washington Post published several articles suggesting that the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. had issued an "ultimatum" threatening to pull its contracts with the city--if the exemption wasn't expanded. The New York Times followed up with its own story about the Church's "threat". In fact, argues Patrick J. Deneen, Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University, the passage of the council bill will force the cancellation of the archdiocese's contracts precisely because the church's employment practices, and related issues, will be in violation of the new law.

The Post provided a Q&A with Patrick Deneen, who answered a series of interesting questions from readers:

"Deneen: I think the basic premise of the Post's story requires clarification. The premise of today's story was that the Catholic Church was threatening to cease to provide charitable services if the law legalizing gay marriage is passed. In point of fact, it is the DC government that would cease to license or contract with the Church unless the Church conformed to a definition of marriage that violates its faith tradition. Without a set of broader legal exemptions allowing for the Church to remain faithful to its definition of marriage, it will cease to be permitted by the City to provide the contracted and licensed services that it has for well over a century. The Church's fundamental desire in this controversy is to continue its desire and freedom to serve."

While city council members who back the same-sex marriage bill insisted that they will not cave in to "threats," they have not explained how the city will replace the shortfall in funds and logistical support created by the church's retreat.