Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jim Burroway reports that Catholic Charities of Washington DC has ended its spousal benefits to make sure that they don't have to give benefits to the spouse of a gay person at some point in the future:
In a bid to avoid inadvertently providing spousal benefits to gay men and women who happen to be employees, Catholic Charities of Washington, D.C. , has taken the extraordinary step of ending spousal benefits for all of its employees, the Washington City Paper reports.Catholic Charities President and CEO Edward Orzechowski sent a memo out to employees yesterday informing them that spouses' who have already been enrolled in the health plan would continue to receive care under a grandfather clause, but that new employees or newly married employees would no longer be eligible to obtain coverage for their spouses through Catholic Charities.
Yes, they're so intent on making sure no gay person could ever get health insurance or pension benefits that they're going to deny such benefits to everyone else too. I guess they believe you should love your neighbor, but that doesn't include treating them like actual human beings.
Politics
Comments
They just dropped their foster care/adoption services in DC due to the church's irrational fear and loathing of gays. This move, while repulsive, will probably affect far fewer employees now that those services have ended. Charity indeed. WWJD indeed. Not act like the pricks these folks are.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 9:30 AM
I'm confused, is it mandated by law to give spousal benefits to all employees equally? Can't they give benefits to different-sex spouses and deny them to same-sex spouses? It would be stupid and wrong, but certainly better than what they do now.
Posted by: lukas | March 7, 2010 9:33 AM
This is a perfect example of why religious conservatives do not want gays coming out of the closet. It exposes how defective their positions are when it comes to how they prioritize which contradictory Bible passages they support and avoid in a manner that reveals what they truly are - hateful bigots. Especially since they want to remain pigs at the public trough while still discriminating people they prefer not exist.
The Catholics are also refusing to re-enroll a child in their daycare merely because her parents are lesbians. Citation: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_14526965?source=commented-
Of course they have every right to do so as long as they don't get government funding, which I hope some Denver reporter is currently investigating regarding whether they are or are not.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 7, 2010 9:34 AM
This will of course be spun by certain people as liberals and gays forcing the poor Catholic Church to drop spousal benefits. That's right before they tell us that black equals white and smoking cures lung cancer.
Posted by: MPW | March 7, 2010 9:47 AM
Per Michael Heath's preschool story:
I read the article and a lot of the comments on the child being kicked out of a Boulder, CO catholic preschool. Comments were running 60/40 against the school position and the support was split between: "Catholic school=catholic rules." and "Why would lesbians want to be associated with people who despise them in the first place?"
I think the church needs to re-evaluate their bigotry to survive long-term but do not regret the PR disasters, each one driving a nail in their hate and fear filled coffin.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 9:47 AM
Well, when you believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth, doing things like this doesn't really give you any pause.
Posted by: FiveInchTaint | March 7, 2010 9:58 AM
For those of us who've wondered how gay rights can possibly threaten marriage, I guess the Church has invented an answer.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 7, 2010 10:09 AM
One could be cynical and wonder if this is just an excuse to cut spending while trying not to look like Scrooge considering the rising cost of health insurance.
Posted by: Erp | March 7, 2010 10:22 AM
Erp,
I think you have it exactly backwards. The more appropriate, less bigoted response would be to use the entirely reasonable excuse of funding problems rather than specifically point out their un-christian act.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 10:29 AM
Yes, but that would also be the response that left them no opportunity to adopt a climb up on their little crosses and play the martyr.
Posted by: xebecs | March 7, 2010 11:12 AM
Nothing like a sentence garbled in the process of editing...
Yes, but that would also be the response that left them no opportunity to
adopt aclimb up on their little crosses and play the martyr.Posted by: xebecs | March 7, 2010 11:26 AM
Seems to me the Catholic Church has two fixed moral positions now:
1) Absent being able to make abortion completely illegal, make it as difficult and expensive as possible for poor women to have abortions
2) Retaining the ability for the church and individual Catholics to fag-bash, both physically and mentally, under the cover of religious freedom.
Everything else is negotiable.
Posted by: Don K | March 7, 2010 11:35 AM
One would be forgiven in thinking that this is just the beginning of a plan for reconciling the CC with protestants.
Either way, this does little to improve my view of religion in general, and nothing to Catholocism in particular (especially my indirect history with it considering it's been my family's historical religion for centuries).
Posted by: Bachalon | March 7, 2010 11:40 AM
I'm surprised the Catholic Church continues to pay their employees. If gay marriage gets passed, some of that money might someday buy food for gay people.
Posted by: KathyO | March 7, 2010 11:42 AM
Shut down that soup kitchen NOW!!! I saw a person with Teh Ghey standing in line!
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 7, 2010 11:59 AM
Don K @ 12:
The Stupak-Pitts amendment, backed largely in the Democratic House caucus by Catholics and what is now in the House version of the bill, is far more ambitious beyond this objective. That amendment seeks to effectively deny nearly all abortion insurance coverage for all women; even if it risks their health or the fetus can not exist outside the womb (e.g., anencephaly). Such procedures can cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. It extends beyond poor women since even the well-to-do struggle to find a healthcare provider who is even able to provide them with mid- to late-term care. The Stupak-Pitts bill would greatly aggravate the supply for this healthcare imperative.
When one considers the implications of the Catholic position on abortion rights beyond its objection to on-demand, the word I've continued to use is chilling when it comes to women's health.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 7, 2010 12:00 PM
And yet, the very same people will tell you, without the slightest hint of irony, that they believe in the "sanctity of human life." Hypocrisy, thy name is the Catholic church.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 7, 2010 12:07 PM
The Catholic Church: Protecting pedophile priests, treating women as 2nd class citizens at best, chattel at worst, and barring any acceptance of a tenth of the population because of an innate sexual preference. That last probably because some goatherd got nervous in a pub 2000 years ago.
The scary part is that the church can continue to receive the support it does when it condemns over half the population to (effective) slavery or derision. And yet women still trundle themselves off to services every Sunday and lesbians enroll their little boy in a catholic preschool. The mind boggles.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 12:27 PM
The Catholic Church: Protecting pedophile priests, treating women as 2nd class citizens at best, chattel at worst, and barring any acceptance of a tenth of the population because of an innate sexual preference. That last probably because some goatherd got nervous in a pub 2000 years ago.
The scary part is that the church can continue to receive the support it does when it condemns over half the population to (effective) slavery or derision. And yet women still trundle themselves off to services every Sunday and lesbians enroll their little boy in a catholic preschool. The mind boggles.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 12:37 PM
Even if you think the very worst of it, the RCC used to be an institution that warranted respect, if only for its influence and power.
That former giant--which pretty much ruled the Western world, once--has devolved into the St. Blather's Home for Selfish, Resentful Old Farts. The nuns, priests and brothers of my girlhood, whose values brought them out to fight racism, war, injustice and poverty have gone and taken those values with them--leaving a institution that is now driven entirely by hysteria over sex.
It's rather sad.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | March 7, 2010 12:53 PM
I agree with Molly, NYC. I went to Catholic schools from 1970 to 1982. It was when the rules of Vatican II were in full effect.
Then JP II came along and all hell broke loose. It's interesting that when the church started liberalizing they actually attracted more congregants. Ever since JP II they've been losing congregants though they'll never admit that. Just take a cruise by your local Catholic church on a Sunday morning to early afternoon. Count the cars in the parking lot. If there are perhaps 50 people at a service I'd be terribly surprised.
It's only going to get worse. Benny the Rat probably isn't going to last much longer and the next pope could be from that virulently homophobic section of the world called Africa.
Posted by: Tony P | March 7, 2010 1:02 PM
The Catholic Church: Protecting pedophile priests, treating women as 2nd class citizens at best, chattel at worst, and barring any acceptance of a tenth of the population because of an innate sexual preference. That last probably because some goatherd got nervous in a pub 2000 years ago.
The scary part is that the church can continue to receive the support it does when it condemns over half the population to (effective) slavery or derision. And yet women still trundle themselves off to services every Sunday and lesbians enroll their little boy in a catholic preschool. The mind boggles.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 1:10 PM
Sorry about the multiple posts. My network connection went squirrely and every time I tried to just refresh the page, I sent in a repeat post.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 1:12 PM
The Catholic Church: Protecting pedophile priests, treating women as 2nd class citizens at best, chattel at worst, and barring any acceptance of a tenth of the population because of an innate sexual preference. That last probably because some goatherd got nervous in a pub 2000 years ago.
The scary part is that the church can continue to receive the support it does when it condemns over half the population to (effective) slavery or derision. And yet women still trundle themselves off to services every Sunday and lesbians enroll their little boy in a catholic preschool. The mind boggles.
Posted by: rinse and repeat | March 7, 2010 1:48 PM
Except the interesting thing is that the equal marriage law in DC had no affect on foster and adoption services. DC has had an anti-discrimination law that covers LGBT people for more than a decade now. Catholic Charities, as in Massachusetts, was barred from discriminating in foster and adoption services long ago. In MA it was revealed they followed the law for a decade - but only placed about 13 kids with LGBT parents - before the local bishop demanded they stop. I have to wonder, is Catholic Charities DC admitting years of violations of the law, or were they quietly following it as well, only to be shut down in the face of a new bishop's bigotry?
Also, it is informative to remember that the Church has had no problem providing spousal benefits for heterosexual employees who are not married according to canon law - for instance, all previously divorced people and those married by JPs. Only TEH GAY inspires this kind of hate (same thing with that school in CO, how many divorced/remarried parents do you think send their kids there?)
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 7, 2010 2:53 PM
@6, NineInchTaint, who said,
Both your handle and your comment should be enshrined in the Hall of Wonderful Linguistics. I promise that you will be quoted.
It appears, by their actions, that the Once Great Church is well past it dotage and is entering an end game characterized by spasmodic, uncontrollable twitching, random utterances of offensiveness, and an inwardly spiraling, ever faster gait.
Oh, and a trembling fear of adults having control over their own nasty bits. Yes, mostly that.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 7, 2010 3:09 PM
And they had to break down the door and shoot a couple of dog, terrorize--at the very least--one innocent person (the boy) to keep him from flushing his huge stash of pot down the toilet? As one who has flushed toilets for about fifty seven years trying to get rid of any quantity of anything by flushing it is probably not gonna work out.
Posted by: democommie | March 7, 2010 3:34 PM
First, I find this absolutely mendacious. It doesn't even make sense in light of the fact that the Catholic Church has had no problem providing direct, charitable health care services to gays and lesbians. The church even ran health care facilities and hospices for indigent AIDS patients on Catholic Church property.
I know many nuns and priests. Many are still at odds with the Catholic Church hierarchy on birth control and homosexuality. And a good many are at odds with the church on abortion, refusing to preach on the subject. But that is changing as liberals increasingly duck for cover in many places. Nonetheless, the continuing presence of liberals at the parish level might partly explain the perverse phenomenon MikeMa notices:
Many Catholic parish priests still welcome gays and lesbians, even including them in ministry roles. In Chicago, there are several parishes that openly and purposely serve the gay community, with the explicit support of the local church hierarchy. Parishioners are not subjected to the hate sermons they would hear in many Evangelical churches.
How long this will continue is in question. For many years the American Catholic hierarchy quietly supported Catholic gays in the priesthood, in religious life and in the laity. To a great extent, that is still true at the level of the parish, which is largely run by priests who were ordained pre c 1995. That date is significant.
Things began to change as Reich-wing nutjob JPII, re-trained his sites on western liberalism after the fall o f communism. In his early years, JP appointed many liberal bishops. In his later years, he declared a mandatory retirement age for bishops to force liberals out, enabling him to replace these bishops with bishops who had more in common politically with Evangelical conservatives than run of the mill Catholics (nearly 50% of whom now support gay marriage).
JPII also raised the standing of right-wing religious societies founded by a mix of uber-creepy Roy Cohn closeted homosexuals and ultra-conservative sex abusers. He had long been sympathetic to these formerly shunned groups because of their fascist (anti-communist) origins. Up until communism fell, he didn't like western liberalism one bit, but I suspect that he didn't want to do anything that would seriously undermine his western support. Throwing fuel on the fire of his medieval church values was the fact that he had not expected that culturally conservative Poland would liberalize after the fall of Communism. I think that he actually expected Poland to return to something like a pre-WWII culture.
So it was after the fall of communism that his political mission to destroy liberalism kicked into high gear. Until then, he preferred that priests and bishops keep a relatively low political profile in the west. Despite that, some were politically active, both on the left and the right, but JP was not vigorously encouraging it. As he appointed an army of right-wing bishops in the latter part of his administration, he became more supportive of conservative political meddling.
In some places, JPII and B16 have been quite successful in squeezing out the liberal-minded; in other places a quiet, formidable resistance remains. This resistance is, to some extent, why a small but significant number of gays have stayed with the Catholic Church, albeit with intensely mixed feelings. I do think that gay men have stayed in larger numbers than lesbians who were fed up with the double whammy of church bigotry against both gays and women.
Most that have stayed are angry about what has happened to their church over the past 20 years. Most have tried other churches, but they often complain that they never quite feel at home in Protestant churches—even those that actively welcome LGBT members. There is a cultural character to Catholic worship and Catholic parishes that feels like home to many people. And, again, on the ground level, in their Catholic parishes, they are usually welcome and active members of parish life.
So they live with this Andrew Sullivan-esque contradiction in their lives. This might be hard for someone who wasn’t raised Catholic to relate to, but the secular, ethnic and religious dimensions of Catholic culture are as thoroughly intertwined as they are in Southern Evangelical culture. Though the majority of GLBT persons have left the Catholic Church, to a person who grew up in an Irish, Polish or Italian-American parish, an Episcopalian parish can seem like an alien world. Those who attended Catholic schools feel an added bond of shared understanding that they don’t find in non-Catholic churches. To be sure, I’m not advocating that the gays (or anyone, for that matter) stay in the Catholic Church, but I do know quite a bit about what motivates people to stay because I’ve heard the same story many times.
In the past five years, the Vatican’s efforts to purge the church of gays have further intensified. The Vatican dishonestly blames the sexual scandals on gay priests, which is even more outrageous because Vatican City is thoroughly dominated by cliques of gay men who are either hypocrites who love power or just plain old self-hating gay men. And they’ve sent enforcers out to the Western Seminaries to purge them of gay men (or at least men who might admit that they are gay). That move, coupled with the fact that the American Church is now heavily importing seminarians from gay intolerant societies in Africa, Mexico and the Philippines will surely change the facts on the ground over the next 15 years. So, as priests who are now age 45 and older retire, and as the last of the nuns die off, I suspect we’ll see less of the mind-boggling contradiction MikeMa notices.
Posted by: Dr X | March 7, 2010 3:37 PM
Dr. X:
Taking care of dying gays is okay--they're an object lesson to the "spiritual community" in what happens when people have icky buttsex! Showing any sort of compassion for healthy--STILL SINNING--sexually active gays? whole different story.
Posted by: democommie | March 7, 2010 3:42 PM
I really do save my loathing and derision for the homophobic, women hating church hierarchy. Many of the individuals, especially at the parish level, do not feel or act this way but the high profile crap pulled in DC and Boulder makes the individual efforts more difficult and the future fall of the church more certain.
Lets see if I can manage to post this just once.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 4:09 PM
Dr. X - Great post.
I think an important characteristic of the priesthood is that the celibacy requirement attracts men who really don't deal very well with sexuality--their own, or anyone else's. Like, it's supposed to be something they're giving up by entering orders, but for these guys, it's more like something they're escaping.
And this inability to cope becomes more pronounced as you go up the hierarchy, so it's not a surprise that lay Catholics are perfectly reasonable on this subject, parish priests are often okay, but as you go up the ladder (and into positions that offer decreasing exposure to women, families, friends with normal sex lives, sexual opportunities for themselves, or anything else that might offer a reality check), the hierarchs get battier and battier.
This explains all those pedophile priests who got shipped around, and why the resulting scandals are being interpreted entirely as a problem with sexual orientation by the higher-ups. The sweeping-under-the-rug solution with the pedophiles was the one that allowed these horrified old men to deal with the problem least, the one that made it go away the fastest. (If the priests had, say, embezzled church funds, would they have gotten off so lightly?) By the same token, the idea that this problem can be fixed by going after homosexuals has credence with them because it's simplistic and ill-considered. They don't want to well-consider it. That would involve thinking about sex, which would totally creep them out.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | March 7, 2010 5:36 PM
Good. Maybe if we back them up enough, we can back them right out of this country.
That'd be a beautiful thing.
Posted by: Enigma32 | March 7, 2010 6:06 PM
The church does not have to feel bad about this act because NO ONE important is harmed. The hated gays don't get holey money. So where's the harm?? Oh you think the spouse in a hetero marriage has a problem?? Who plucking cares!!! They are women! the bringers of death and evil!! Who will commune with satan at the first chance they get!!
But considering how many xtian women there are, they must really LOVE being looked at and treated that way!!!
Got to love those Xtians and bet the same goes for the islamics too.
Posted by: CybrgnX | March 7, 2010 8:37 PM
Maybe there was some concern that the little boys who've spent time with the priests might demand the same thing? That could bankrupt god's bank! Now if governments would only get rid of benefits to couples - why the hell are single people handing out taxes to give concessions to the breeders?
Posted by: MadScientist | March 8, 2010 2:26 AM
@mikema: I agree with ERP - cut expenditures and blame it all on teh gayz. After all, they wouldn't fight back, would they? They're one of various cults' favorite scapegoats.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 8, 2010 6:40 AM
The thing that really bothers me is that they probably let children attend who were conceived out of wedlock, or whose parents have been divorced. I'm sure they allow children to attend whose parents have used birth control during marriage and who have had premarital sex. They just like to single out this one particular "sin" for some reason.
Actually Catholicism is the state-mandated religion in many countries. A lot of Americans are turning away from the church or only following apathetically, but the church still has a very strong hold in many parts of the world, especially South America.
Posted by: catgirl | March 8, 2010 1:28 PM