Catholic Charities to adjust benefits in light of same sex rulins
 

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.

"We looked at all the options and implications," said the charity's president, Edward J. Orzechowski. "This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city's new requirements and remain faithful to the church's teaching."

Catholic Charities, which receives $22 million from the city for social service programs, protested in the run-up to the council's December vote to allow same-sex marriage, saying that it might not be able to continue its contracts with the city, including operating homeless shelters and facilitating city-sponsored adoptions. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes such unions.


After the council voted to legalize gay marriage, Catholic Charities last month transferred its foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

Orzechowski said Monday that the change in health benefits will be the last move necessary in response to the legislation.

link

I don't get it. Are they not offering benefits to any not previously-enrolled spouses period? Is that what that means? :confused:

yes that is exactly what they are doing. This way they cannot be sued for discrimination. By excluding ALL spouses, they don't run afoul of the law.

I'm not sure how I feel about this; I understand what they are doing, but I don't know that I agree with it.

I personally don't agree with what they are doing, but I do understand it. This is the only way they can follow both the law of the land, in this case DC, and canonical law.

Well someone has to say it...Am I the only one who finds it somewhat amusing that the Catholic organization opposes any advancement in gay rights and yet stands by its priests so stoically whenever they are found to be kiddy fiddlers?

^No, neither of those are amusing to me (and when you place them together, it comes across as if you believe "gay" & "child molester" are somehow related and that is where you find the "irony").

Not necessarily placing them together...you do see where this is going.

It's mostly hypocritical how they want to openly deny gay people benefits but will go to great lengths to protect their own wrongdoing when it comes to light.

I have a hard time imputing the individual actions of a few morally corrupt leaders to the whole Church. As far as standing behind priests so stoically, I haven't seen that, especially not recently. Does the Church defend lawsuits? Hell yes. It has billions of dollars in assets and until you go through some litigation in most cases, it's tough to judge the veracity of the claim.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I find it interesting that some perceptions in many corners of our society link the idea of child molestation and the Catholic Church together, as if priests are more prone to this then anyone else.

It's not like these crimes don't happen in other religious denominations. I remember hearing in a primetime news documentary a few years back about the same issues within the Jehovah's Witnesses. And they were trying to cover things up as well.

Agree, it isn't about defending leaders necessarily. It is about protecting the assets they have because of those leaders. It's like any other company in which an individual is caught doing wrong, the first reaction is how do we protect our assets.

My father had a relatively high profile case against the Mormon church concerning the same thing. The Church had threatened to excommunicate the family if they revealed what happened to anyone (the perpetrator was a Bishop).

The Mormons won that case because the family waited (because of the church's intimidation) past the statute of limitations. Took it to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and lost -- he got a pretty strongly worded written dissent, something which is rare for that body.

You should have stated it like this in the beginning. ;)

www.reformation.com for a listing of the sexual abuse cases of non-Roman Catholic churches.

And where is the REAL scandal about abuse of our children? In our schools.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/.../5/01552.shtml

Does that excuse covering up abuse by individuals in the Roman Catholic church? No. And the question is, did they learn and have they instituted policies to make sure it doesn't happen now? Yes.

But logically, it has nothing to do with changing their policy regarding benefits in order to be able to both meet the standard imposed by D.C. and remain true to church teachings. Apples to oranges.

:(

I'm personally glad they are taking a stand in this regard, but I don't like the fact that some spouses who AREN'T same-sex won't be able to be enrolled. That's a bummer.