Catholic bashing (phrase of the day)

Check this out from the Washington Post.

The Archdiocese’s ultimatum

By David Waters

In a surprisingly bold and seemingly unbiblical move, [tuck that word away for the time being] the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is threatening to discontinue its social support for nearly 70,000 people—including a third of Washington’s homeless—because of its opposition to a proposed same-sex marriage bill. [Think about this. The issue in question is not support of the homeless. It is really same-sex marriage, ... which has another name, FWIW.]

Under the proposed bill, according to a story by Post reporters Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein, religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex weddings, "but they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians." [And therefore…]

Apparently, the archdiocese is concerned that it could be forced, for example, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, open adoptions to same-sex couples, or rent a church hall to gay and lesbian groups. "If the city requires this, we can’t do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem." [Yes, that is a problem. But notice the key part here: "The city is saying that in order to provide…" Get that? "The city is saying…".]

And withdrawing support for the poor and the hungry isn’t a problem? [Ummm… did he slip into Bearded-Spock-Reality? The issue is same-sex marriage.]

It gets complicated anytime church and state work together to provide services for people, especially when a mix of public and private funds and facilities is involved. In this case, for example, the church manages a number of city-owned homeless shelters. [aaaaaaand….? So…. the Archdiocese is ready to continue to help so long as the City doesn’t pressure the the Archdiocese to do morally repugnant things. Is that it?]

The use of public funds and facilities should be governed by secular laws and regulations, including anti-discrimination laws. But churches and other non-profit religious organizations are exempt from many such laws, because of church-state separation.

The Church should have every right to oppose any piece of legislation and to use its funds and facilities as it sees fit. [Except when it interferes with a liberal agenda?] On the other hand, if any church is going to accept government funding for any purpose, shouldn’t it be required to abide by government rules?

But the larger question is this: [Get this….] Is the Church really going to ignore the gospel imperative to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the disadvantaged—in this case 70,000—because it might have to provide better benefits to a few of its own workers? I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant by "going the extra mile." [And the City is going to ignore the prescription by God not to commit sodomy. Is that it?]

As DC council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) put it: "Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" [How thick is Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3)?]

This seems to be the scenario.

The Archdiocese is presently doing its part to help homeless people.

The City is going to press the Archdiocese to do things which are morally repugnant and contrary both to Scripture and the natural law.

So, standing there with its hands open in both directions, waiting to help the poor, it would actually be the CITY which would cut off funds to help the Archdiocese, because the Archdiocese refuses to condone sodomy.

Get that? The City would suspend the funds.

Therefore the liberals, to pressure the Church to violate the interior logic of Christianity, say that the Church wants to "harm" the poor.

Is that what I just read?

And the writer, Waters, who flashes out the word "unbiblical" might want to review Holy Writ’s comments on sodomy.

(special thanks to Fr. Zuhisdorf)