Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Who would Jesus not serve?
Q: If a church or other religious charity receives government funding, should it follow all government rules, including those against discrimination based on sexual orientation? Or should government exempt such organizations from requirements that violate particular religious beliefs?
In His ministry, Jesus was unafraid to care for those who were less fortunate and who society deemed unworthy of love. In our time, the Catholic Church has long been a beacon of moral leadership when it comes to caring for those in need. Their work to feed those who are hungry, minister to the poor and lift up those who have been cast aside by society has been among the highest embodiments of Jesus' teachings.
And that is why I was so disappointed by Archbishop Donald Wuerl's decision to end their adoption services program and spousal benefits for future employees of Catholic Charities in the District of Columbia. Doing so hurts gay and non-gay people alike. It goes against the heart of how Jesus taught us to be in this world, no matter what the legal circumstance.
In the great parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus taught "Just as you did it for the least of these, you did it to me... Just as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to me" (Matthew 25:40-45). In other words, it is our duty to help those who are suffering, those who are most in need. And Jesus takes no excuses concerning why; He makes no exceptions.
Indeed, the Gospels affirm again and again Jesus' messages of inclusion, charity and non-judgment. Jesus demonstrates His compassion for everyone who came to Him, feeding the crowd of five thousand with only five loaves and two fishes (John 6:1-14). He does not ask the sexual orientation of each person before offering them His help.
Jesus' example has inspired Christians through the ages to reach out to the hungry and needy, the orphan and the widow, including the long mission of Catholic Charities in the Washington Archdiocese. This service has been life-giving and a witness to the love of Christ for all.
And so it grieves me to see Archbishop Wuerl and the Catholic Charities choose to deny help to those in need because they have judged certain parents unworthy of adoption, and certain employees' spouses unworthy of health care and other benefits.
As Christians who strive to follow Jesus' example, we are called to minister to the weak and to rejoice when the longsuffering find relief -- including the stalwart LGBT couples who have waited so long to get married. We all know Jesus loved a good wedding feast.
And we need not rely upon the new D.C. law to know the right and Christian thing to do. We need only look to Jesus' embrace of all the faithful, and the exuberant joy of the couples lining up at city hall to marry the person they love. We need go no further than the classic question used to teach morality to church youth groups: "What would Jesus do?"
By
Janet Edwards
|
March 10, 2010; 11:46 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: If you receive government funds you must follow the rules |
Next: The end for tax-funded religious service agencies?
Posted by: Tuckleberry | March 16, 2010 8:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
They'd lock Jesus up and he'd be locked up. I guess he'd sit around reading the morning paper and having coffee wondering what in the world was wrong with these people and waiting for another barrier breaking moment and then he'd be unlocked down. I just want to be a lowlife in a Lotus breaking up the speed limit and flying without wings. I guess Jesus would drive too fast and elude law enforcement so he'd be harder to catch and less likely to be locked up. The feeling of exhilaration is more than just pride-it's faith. The next corner is coming up and you can't slow down. It's sublime.
Posted by: tossnokia | March 15, 2010 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Catholic Church (I am a practicing member) disgraced itself once more. Heal thyself, not preach division.
Posted by: fairness3 | March 15, 2010 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus sais render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Catholics do so by paying their taxes.However to threaten to withdraw Government subsidy of Catholic institutions if they do not betray the representation of Catholic teaching is an infringement of freedom of belief.
No taxation without representation was the rallying cry that led to the foundation of America and that foundation is being betrayed.
Posted by: marymack77 | March 14, 2010 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Christ choose not to serve quite a few people. He refused to come and heal Lazarus, he initially refused syrophoenician woman the healing of her daughter, he refused to show miracles to the Pharisees, and when he healed a paralyzed man at the Pool of Bethesda he passed over dozens of others who were sick.
Perhaps a better question is this: Does God have a right to call people to repentance? Does he have that right? Sexual sin is sexual sin, and there is freedom from that lifestyle for those who desire it.
The Catholic Church did the right thing. Natural Law always trumps state law.
Posted by: JPDG | March 12, 2010 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
It is true, as JPDG notes in his/her examples, that people do take a lot of lattitude in their description of Jesus' compassion--ignoring some significant distinctions. The compassion that Christ came to show was not sympathy and acceptance for who we all are as individuals--that really contradicts the message of the gospels, actually. Jesus' message was about repentance, and being moved by our inevitable imperfection as humans to seek out something better.
So--the pity and kindness he felt really showed forth with people who WANTED to be changed from what they were by nature, because they saw their need. His compassion was that he gave them power to overcome that they didn't possess themselves. No one can help a person who doesn't want to be helped--not even God.
On that note, in theory churches really aren't in the right to dictate doctrine to anyone. The rub comes when the influence of religion (I'm speaking of monotheistic, Abramic) on social life falls apart, piece by piece, to such an extent that interacting with the world is to be constantly expected to accept, not the different or the new, but the unacceptable.
On the issue of same sex marriage, past all the hemming and hawing, the real problem IS about God, which makes people reluctant to say anything--maybe because they feel hypocritical or prudish or whatever. Regardless, the crux is that it violates both the letter and spirit of God's commandment and shows irreverence for what is never just a legal union, but a sacrament.
I not a big fan of the Catholic Church, but I have to give them credit for not capitulating thus far.