DC Archdiocese opposes same sex marriage law

Catholic News Agency reports that changes in DC law to allow same sex couples to marry could cause the Roman Catholic Archdiocese to cease services that are now provided to the poor. Is this a threat?


Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.

In written testimony, the archdiocese opposed the legislation and “any effort to redefine marriage as any other than that between a man and a woman.” The archdiocese voiced “deep concerns” that the bill would restrict religious freedom if it is passed as drafted.

To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”

Read more here.

Posted by Ann Fontaine on November 3, 2009 10:30 PM | |
Comments (3)

It sure sounds like a threat. The logic of the Roman Catholic establishment here escapes me. Every week, I buy groceries for a local food pantry and other necessities for a domestic violence shelter. I have no idea if they go to divorcees, cohabitating people, single parents, women pregnant out of wedlock, heterosexuals or homosexuals, and I don't need to know that. I do know that they get to other human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, who are burdened by hardship and need help badly. Jesus told me to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the sick and visit the jailed -- nowhere in his gospels does he tell me to check their marital or moral status first, to determine whether or not they receive my charity. Once again, in a big way, Rome's missing the point. I'll take my chances with the Christ Jesus who openly dined with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners, no matter how much the religious establishment, in its self-righteousness, spoke ill of him for that.

Posted by Gregory [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 4, 2009 10:29 AM

Does anyone know if any of the supposed risks to religious insitutions pointed out in the article are actually real? Wouldn't these "risks" also be present in the context of things like women's oridination, etc? It all seems absurd, but I can't say for sure.

In any case, it does not seem like there should be any reason why a law can't be drafted that clearly grants civil equality while still allowing for religious inequality (not that that's ideal).

Posted by Grant Charles Chaput [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 4, 2009 10:44 AM

It quite clearly is a threat: "If the Council passes this bill as written, these programs are at risk…"

Same-sex marriage proponents have to be as ready to play hardball as the Catholic Church is, threatening 68,000 clients if it doesn't get its way.

Posted by Josh Thomas [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 4, 2009 10:40 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space