Jeffrey Weiss

Contributor

D.C. vs. the Catholic Church: A Faith-Based Train Wreck?

Posted:

11/19/09

Filed Under:Religion, Gay Rights, Culture

44 Comments +

Join the discussion »

TEXT SIZE:AAA
PRINT

The current kerfuffle between the city council in Washington, D.C., and the local Catholic archdiocese may be a worst-case lesson about what can happen when church and state try to work together.

The specific details, frankly, aren't hugely important to my point. But if you haven't been paying attention: The council is expected to pass a same-sex marriage bill that would protect gays and lesbians against discrimination in the capital. Meaning that entities that serve the general public will need to bring their policies in line.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

That would particularly apply to entities that are taking city money for one reason or another. And that includes the archdiocese, which has partnered with D.C. to offer social services to the homeless, facilitate adoptions, and provide foster care.

The church says that if the city goes through with its plans, the partnership would end.

"Religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in a statement. "This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples."

For more details, here's a link to one of the Washington Post's several stories about the dispute. And here's Politics Daily's own David Gibson's take on the facts.

Just to get the obvious off the table: The proposed ordinance would dictate nothing about what the Catholic Church (or any other faith) should teach or believe about same-sex relationships or anything else. And let's leave aside the question of whether one side or the other is right in any absolute sense.

On the one hand, no religious institution should be asked by government to compromise what it considers to be its core beliefs. On the other hand, no governmental body should be asked to compromise, based on any particular religious belief, what it considers the key policies that must be followed by those accepting government money.

Severe conflicts like this one don't happen all that often. But when they do, as in this case, people who have no stake in the particular battle could end up as collateral damage. Catholic Charities currently staffs shelters that serve 68,000 homeless people. What happens to them?

Almost a decade ago, when President George W. Bush spun up his "faith-based initiative," the idea took heavy fire from unexpected quarters -- unexpected, anyway, if you weren't paying close attention. Several leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention lifted their collective legs on the idea that the government should financially entangle itself with religious organizations, even for the best of motives.

Southern Baptist Seminary President Al Mohler put it this way: "When the church takes money from Caesar, the church is corrupted."

As is often his wont, Dr. Richard Land, head of the denomination's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, came up with the money quote:

"As for me and my house, I would not touch the money with the proverbial 10-foot pole."

But tens of millions of dollars -- federal, state and local -- have gone to religious institutions to perform various kinds of social services. Are there any lessons to be drawn from the D.C. drama?

Douglas Kmiec is a famously Catholic professor of Constitutional law and an adviser to several Republican presidents; he endorsed Barack Obama for president. That last fact probably has something to do with the fact that he is now the U.S. ambassador to Malta. Because e-mail works between the U.S. and Malta, I was able to ask him for some thoughts about the principle of church-state linkages.

His answer started with a caveat. He was not speaking in any way for his current employer. Plus:

"I'm so far removed from the controversy that I don't even know the nature of it, so I cannot be biased by the underlying facts. I don't know them."

Even so, his reply contained several applicable nuggets:

"Generally, in the expenditure of money, the government can put any reasonable condition other than one which leverages the government's monetary influence to deny the recipient's freedom to believe or practice using nongovernmental resources. . . . It works this way: government cannot say to the Catholic Church, for example, if you take this money you can no longer believe in the real presence of God in communion, or even more starkly, you cannot distribute communion to your congregation. Government can say, you cannot use government funds that you have received for the purpose of acquiring a crucifix.

"The denial of money, in other words, is seldom perceived as an imposition of a point of view or a coercion of belief or practice so long as the denial of money is related to a generally applicable law that preserves order in the community and the denial involves no condition that is effectively saying, if you accept government money, you cannot use your own money to articulate your own believe or practice."

On the other hand, if there's a synergistic benefit to the archdiocese working with the city, the proposed ordinance could well end that.

For a different point of view, let's turn to Kelly Shakelford, chief counsel of the Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute:

"The city is trying to force the church to drop its beliefs. It is saying that, in order to participate in government programs, you have to drop your religious conscience. That is the very thing that makes religious providers so much more successful than all other providers in providing services and truly changing lives. Give choice. Banning providers who will not violate their religious beliefs just removes choices from those seeking services and help in their lives."

I'll admit I don't see it. The city is not forcing the archdiocese into partnership. The church could decide (as other dioceses have in other cities) to run its own independent charity programs where the city's policies need not apply. But it is true that the city would be constraining the policies of those organizations that want to work with the local government.

For a more pragmatic perspective, let's hear from the Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center. Reese wrote a column on the D.C. dispute that ends with a hope that the two sides will figure out how to square the circle:

"What is needed right now is a toning down of the attacks against the church by those who support the city council's position. Both sides need to look for compromise. An exemption from the law for religious organizations would affect very few people and would allow the church to continue working with the city on behalf of the poor. The city council could always revisit the issue in the future, but the middle of a deep recession is not a good time to fire the best provider of social services in the city."

To which I say: Yeah, like that's likely to happen. I asked Reese if he really expected that the politically entertaining D.C. Council or the dogmatic-by-definition archdiocese could find common ground. His reply: It's possible, and for the most practical of reasons.

"The rationale is that the city gets more bang for the buck from the Catholic church than from other organizations. It's as crass as that."

But what about principle? Should the church bend to entangle itself with a city whose policies it will profoundly disagree with? Ditto from the city side?

"When everything becomes a matter of principle, compromise becomes impossible. Politics is not about principle. It's about compromise and getting things done. "

He may be right that partisan ideas about cooperation between faith-based organizations and government are malleable -- though the shift may not be in the direction of compromise. For evidence, turn to a new Pew Center poll that took the public pulse about the faith-based initiative:

"Republicans are less supportive of this program now than they were during the early months of the Bush administration. Currently, 66 percent of Republicans favor allowing houses of worship to seek government funding to provide social services, down from 81 percent in March 2001. By contrast, more Democrats favor this than did so in 2001 (77 percent now vs. 70 percent then)."

Which reminds me of the Jon Stewart comment that should get the host of "The Daily Show" a spot in any list of great quotations:

"If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values," Stewart said. "They're hobbies."

Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!

44 comments

+ add your own

Jeffrey Weiss

Jeffrey Weiss is an award-winning reporter who covered the ins and outs of faith 'n values for more than a decade for the Dallas Morning News... more

Contact Jeffrey Weiss

subscribe to: RSS email: Jeffrey Weiss

Comments (44)

- TURN COMMENTS OFF

ADD A COMMENT

Chris Williams

10:08AM Nov 19th 2009

Can any of you anti-Obama people respond to the topic at hand instead of going in every article you can and incessantly spew this stuff? Do you have ADD or something? Stay on the topic at hand. If you can't do that, youmustgo.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(13)

Chris Williams

10:13AM Nov 19th 2009

These churches are forced into these controversial decisions because they take federal money therefore are subject to federal mandate. Although I am a supporter of gay-rights, churches should not be forced to accept or conform to things they don't believe in, support or condone.

At the same time, no church should take federal money and the federal government should not give money to any churches due seperation of church and state. And churches would be less pressed to accept these conflicting federal mandates if they stopped sleeping in the same bed as government.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(15)

Tracie Smith

10:15AM Nov 19th 2009

I thought that these people are the ones screaming, 'separation of church and state'. I get it now, it only applies unless the government needs something from a religious entity.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing is going to happen EVERYWHERE. The people who are going to suffer the most are NOT the homos, it will be the parents who want to adopt, the teen girl who wants to adopt out her child, the foster parents, the hungry and homeless...ALL the things the Bible teaches us to do. Homos are NOT in the mix, except to pray for their souls, and that they would change their ways. Homosexuality is an abomination before God.
I totally agree about the gunpowder.
Obamacare is going to bankrupt this country to the point that we will no longer be a superpower. We will be a laughing stock, if we're not already.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-7)

moderate

2:43PM Nov 20th 2009

You and yours already are the laughing stock of the world.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

rhyferys

10:20AM Nov 19th 2009

This should prove very interesting. Will the Church really pull out and risk the publicity that they are throwing 10's of thousands of poor people out into the street in order to keep their right to discriminate against gays? On the other hand, using the same argument that the bishops are using in the abortion/healthcare reform argument, money is fungible. Therefore, any tax dollars that goes to the Catholic Church frees up money for them to pay child abusing priests. I don't wish to subsidize this any more then Catholics want to subsidize abortion. Maybe we really need a strong church/state seperation.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(4)

Tracie Smith

10:26AM Nov 19th 2009

ALL churches are not 'in bed with the government'. Most churches (non-catholic)are self sustaining. We depend on the generosity of the members to maintain the church.
After all, a church is just a building, it's the PEOPLE that make a difference IN the church.
Separation of church and state wasn't written to keep religion out of government,because this country was founded on Christian beliefs, it was written to keep government out of religion.
People fled to this land to get away from a government forced religion, to form their own religion, a Godly people.
Did you know that George Washington, on the day of his inauguration, he and the ENTIRE congress walked to a church and prayed for 2 hours, before he began his presidency? There is a LOT of things in our history they don't teach in school, they don't want us to know these things. We might become the wiser to the government, and rise up against them.
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion, that one useless man is a shame, two is a lawfirm, and three or more is a congress." John Adams--
God bless and have a good day.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

Timothy Wall

3:08PM Nov 19th 2009

Why, Tracie, do you include the quotation maligning "a congress" which you attribute to John Adams? Do you believe the attribution? Do you agree with the sentiment? Do you think it is sensible?

The attribution I think is false; I cannot find any reputable attribution of that line to Adams, or to anyone. Moreover, as Adams was both a lawyer and a representative to the Continental Congresses before the Revolution I think it is implausible.

You are certainly right, that there are many things in our history that aren't taught to most of us. I doubt very much that this is because if we knew, then we might rise up against government (as you seem to say). I believe, though, that if we knew more, we sure would do a better job of selecting our government.

If you can give a bona fide attribution for your "Adams" quote, I would like to know.

Your friend, Tim

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(3)

dumbasademocrat

10:33AM Nov 19th 2009

Simple solution...change the city council .

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-1)

Scott

10:36AM Nov 19th 2009

When any church cries foul in this type of situation I am reminded of a certain Biblical passage. Matthew 5:43-49

Love for Enemies

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Creator in heaven. God causes the sun to rise on the just and the unjust, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Creator is perfect.

In everyday life we observe all around us that raindrops fall and sun shines on everybody, on the "just" as well as on the "unjust," on the "gays" as well as on the "straights." And we learn from reading the Bible that it is God who is directly responsible for this egalitarian arrangement. It is God who sends his own rainfall and his own sunshine on both the "just" and the "unjust," on "homosexual" and on "heterosexual." It is God who sets the pattern for allowing the wheat and the tares to grow up and flourish together under the same sunshine and rain of the present world (Matt 13: 30). David Hill notes in his commentary, "The actions of God's loving concern are not calculated according to worth or merit, but are generously given to all." As Leon Morris puts it, "God does not confine his bounty to those who love him." In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are actively to seek the welfare of all, without reference to their lifestyles -- even and especially when they are enemies, and he says that in doing so we are doing that by which we may behave as proper children of God (Matt 5:44). The everyday behavior of God's model -- sending rain and sunshine -- is what we, the children, should imitate. William Barclay says that "There is no other passage of the New Testament which contains such a concentrated expression of the Christian ethic of personal relations.

To the ordinary person," Barclay reminds us, "this passage describes essential Christianity in action, and even the person who never darkens the door of the church knows that Jesus said this, and very often condemns the professing Christian for falling so far short of its demands." And why shouldn't the "ordinary person" take note of this passage? It is about the "ordinary person" and his or her treatment at the hands of Jesus' followers. What so many of these people experience is something for which we must pray for forgiveness, repent from continuing, and "go and do likewise" after the manner of the Good Samaritan.

Contrary to what some fundamentalists seem to want to believe, the rain still falls on the San Francisco hills and the sun still shines in Greenwich Village. Judging from the above stated Catholic opposition to employment rights for gay people, it's a good thing that the rain and sunshine don't have to be filtered through some fundamentalist committee before reaching gay people. It's too bad, though, that clothing, shelter, food, and employment as the means to earn these necessities of life do seem to have to be filtered through an increasingly hostile fundamentalist opposition to gay rights -- an opposition that tries to boast "higher" standards than even God requires for the everyday necessities of life among the "just" and "unjust" on this planet.

When it comes to civil rights, we evangelical Christians -- as we have seen -- don't have a very good record. We have so often oppressed in the name of God and in the name of morality, only later to discover our previous lack of compassion -- but sometimes not living long enough to plead, "I'm sorry. I am so sorry." Look at what we've done over long stretches of time, to Jews, Catholics, blacks, Arabs, Indians, gypsies, and others. And we're still oppressing all of these. Even more sad is the fact that we seem to be so oblivious to the fact that as we evangelicals oppress the "least of these" we show contempt for their Maker (Proverbs 14:31) and we abuse the Savior (Matt 25:40), for whatever we do or do not do for one of the least of these homosexuals we do or do not do for the One who knows what it is to be despised, rejected, to be a Man of Sorrows and personally acquainted with grief and suffering. And from that One, too, we turned our faces and counted him to be of no account. (Isaiah 53)

I am also reminded of Henry Drummond’s famous little talk on I Corinthians 13 titled ‘The Greatest Thing in the World’. Drummond was a Scottish explorer and professor of natural science. The final paragraph of this classic reads:

"It is the Son of Man before whom the nations of the world shall be gathered. It is in the presence of Humanity that we shall be charged. And the spectacle itself, the mere sight of it, will silently judge each one. Those will be there whom we have met and helped; or there, the unpitied multitude whom we neglected or despised. No other Witness need be summoned. No other charge than lovelessness shall be preferred. Be not deceived. The words which all of us shall one Day hear sound not of theology but of life, not of churches and saints but of the hungry and the poor, not of creeds and doctrines but of shelter and clothing, not of Bibles and prayer-books but of cups of cold water in the name of Christ."

I am not sure it was ever a good idea for any religious establishment to accept government funds. But it is more grievous that a relationship that was working so well will be terminated simply because the Church is not willing to treat all of its employees equally. Such a belief flies at the very heart of Christ’s call to ‘love your enemies.’

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(12)

Hello

7:44PM Nov 19th 2009

Sorry, but Galatians 5:19-22 still applies...

"Those who LIVE like this will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God"

Loving someone is NOT accepting their sin, but accepting them as a child of God and helping them overcome the sin.

Pointing to someone else's sin as an excuse to induldge in your own sin or covering up someone else's sin is not the way to go.

Another scripture states that whomever helps a sinner overcome covers up a multitude of sins.

You all are enablers and your own self-righteousness will not help you in the end.

The really hard part for me to deal with is this growing belief that somehow people who are outwardly self-indulgent and have no regard for their sin can somehow be charitable, and giving.

The whole of the Bible states that loving others is a "New Comandement" It was unheard of outside Israel for someone to give to those who could not pay back or to help those who could not help you back.

Yet listening to today's liberals you'd think they invented love, charity and caring. And that if all the Religious Organizations would just go away and stop all "The Dividing" they could just go about helping everybody and there would be no poverty or war or hunger.

The Bible also states we need to come to God for the POWER to do good and help others.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

Maj

8:41AM Nov 25th 2009

Very profoundly stated! Your response reminds me of another passage of scripture- Romans 12:14,17-20...(14)Bless those who persecute you: bless and do not curse them.(17)Repay no one evil for evil, but take notice what is honest and proper and noble, (18) If possible, as fa as it depends on you, live at peace with EVERYONE.(19)Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for GOD'S wrath: for it is written, Vengence is Mine, I will repay says the Lord.20, but if your enemy is hungary feed him; if he is thirsty., give him drink, fro by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.21..Do not let yourself be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(1)

bcarrknapp

11:31AM Nov 19th 2009

Personally, I could care less. If the gays want to marry each other and be subject to the same laws that apply to all married couples, then so be it. Why does everything that is set up to help the homeless, adoption and foster care end up at the mercy of the government and the church? I have seen same sex couples that are very caring people and I have seen gay couples that are just down right mean, but then so are some heterosexual couples.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(5)

knappag1

1:06PM Nov 19th 2009

Catholic church should stop spending billions covering up sex crimes.

Sundbold an Auburn N.Y TURD Priest is up o charges of sex crimes.

There are thousands of pages of testimony coming out of hartford about sex crimes of priests and then remember Cardinal malony of LA just paid over 1.2 million to cover up a sex crimes by a priest

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-6)

Lizzie

2:12PM Nov 19th 2009

Lets not forget all the other so-called religions that have condone incest and pedophiles as their leaders.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(7)

moderate

2:51PM Nov 20th 2009

lizzie... that is the point. They pay NO taxes, yet feel it is there right to take our taxes then discriminate and push hate. No religion should be tax exempt. You want to believe in magic, fine don't except to use tax dollars to promote that belief.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(-2)

gvpal52

1:58PM Nov 19th 2009

When are all Christians and Jews going to realize that the Democratic party is there enemy not there friend. They offer more protection to atheists then they do us. Write it down and don't forget again!

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

Rheinhart Moxon

4:10PM Nov 19th 2009

The archdiocese leadership have ALL registered as 'Agents of a Foreign Government', right?

After all, they are lead not by any POTUS, but by a foreign Leader.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(2)

todway

6:22PM Nov 19th 2009

Jeffrey Weiss is a weak writer. Hackneyed. Too cute by half.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

honeyrilla

6:28PM Nov 19th 2009

I still don't understand the controversy. Catholic Charities has been accepting money from the government for decades. There's never been a problem or controversy. Perhaps this reporter should look into how this model has been surviving for at least 3 decades. I haven't heard of a case where Catholic Charities has discriminated against a person - but I suppose anything is possible.

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

honeyrilla

6:29PM Nov 19th 2009

RATE THIS COMMENT:

(0)

Most Recent | Next 20 »

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

Avoid hate speech, foul language or a disrespectful tone in your comments. Unwanted comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderator.