Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Second ex-Catholic Charities officer criticizing health-care cut
By William Wan
Capping off a week of controversy at Catholic Charities, a second high-ranking former executive sent a statement to the Post today, opposing the organization's recent decision to eliminate health benefits for spouses as as a way to avoid offering benefits to the same-sex partners of its workers.
Wayne L. Swann, former vice president of human resources, makes his argument against the cuts on theological and business grounds. "It is incomprehensible that given its tireless efforts on behalf of the poor and vulnerable that the Catholic Church would deny anything to people in need," Swann writes, "...The expense of acquiring individual coverage for spouses by employees of Catholic Charities will be a significant financial burden and may be cost prohibitive during this time of ever increasing premiums and current economic conditions."
The Archdiocese didn't provide a specific response to the letter, but in recent days Archbishop Donald Wuerl has argued that the reduction of benefits is justifiable under Catholic teaching as long as employees are paid a just wage. Wuerl and church officials have said reducing spousal benefits was a tough decision but was necessary for Catholic Charities to continue its social service programs.
An archdiocese spokeswoman also emailed this statement from the church's initial announcement of the benefit change: "Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington is fully committed to serving all people in need, regardless of their circumstance, including race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation. The agency has changed its employee benefit plan to comply with the DC same-sex marriage law while continuing to offer excellent coverage for employees. Catholic Charities will continue to honor the existing health care coverage of all current employees that was in place as of March 1, 2010. After that date, new and current employees will not be able to add spouses to their health care plan. This approach allows Catholic Charities to continue to provide services to the 68,000 people it now cares for in the city, to comply with the city's new requirements and to remain faithful to our Catholic identity."
Swann's letter comes on the heels of another letter from the agency's former chief operating officer making similar points.
Swann served three-and-a-half years on the Catholic Charities board of directors and another four years as vice president of HR. Swann and the archdiocese declined to discuss what caused his departure last fall. The full text of Swann's letter: SwannStatement.pdf.
William Wan
| March 5, 2010; 3:37 PM ET | Category: God in Government Save & Share:
Previous: People want more religion news coverage (now a statistically proven fact) | Next: Q&A with World Vision president
Posted by: mtourjee | March 5, 2010 9:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't know. It looks like this guy is mad because the Charities is following Catholic teaching. I think the diocese did a good thing.
Posted by: EileenC1 | March 5, 2010 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Will the diocese deny coverage to it's clergy that practices same-sex sex with it's little boys?
Posted by: coloradodog | March 5, 2010 10:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Catholic Church has changed its mind on any number of things.
It wasn't until 1000 A.D. that they banned their clergy from getting married. They had popes who had been married and sired children too (Alexander VI, people. You know, amongst his 14 children were Lucrezia and Cesare Borgia).
Did they tell their CURRENT employees back in November that if they didn't have their spouse/family enrolled that they wouldn't have the opportunity to do so at all, ever, in the future?
And their beefing that the big, bad media is hurting their image by reporting on this stuff is laughable. They may as well huff and puff over the audacity of the press, reporting on the sexual abuse of children by anyone (including their priests), or the sex scandal back at the Vatican earlier this week, etc.
Sex outside of marriage is bad? Then what's the problem with people getting married? It's a CIVIL issue. The STATE issues the marriage licenses, not the church or synagogue or temple, etc. Marriage license in hand, I was wed at a courthouse. Almost 20 years ago. Whether or not anyone else regards us as married doesn't matter one jot or tittle. The IRS does, and that is what counts this, and every, tax season.
I wish EVERY foolish happy pair getting married the best of luck and much health and happiness. Isn't that what we all do?
Posted by: Skowronek | March 6, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You like numbers?
In 1994, PWC audit of the Vatican Bank listed:
- 1,483 billion lire in assets [About $848 million]: -
- 732 billion lire [about $419 million] in liabilities (in the
"Consolidated Financial Statements of the Holy See" (410 billion in
cash, 479 billion in stocks and bonds, 29 billion in gold, and 470
billion in fixed assets - investments and real-estate) . 269 billion
lire are in deposits and accounts of Vatican entities, 96 billion for
employees' severance indemnities and 262 billion at the value of
pensions to present employees;
- 750 billion are in net assets
So you can understand the belt tightening.
Posted by: eddie111 | March 8, 2010 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So how exactly will this help Catholic Charities retain or obtain good "faithful" employees? Knowing you will not get spousal coverage if you chose to work there because the church wants to show the gays they mean business??
Why anyone would want to work in a place like this is beyond me.
Signed,
Ex-catholic
Posted by: MSPlover | March 8, 2010 4:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I was dismayed to read that, yet again, my church has chosen to turn away from those in need by rejecting spousal benefits to Catholic Charities employees in order to avoid providing them to same sex partners. To turn away those in need because of bigotry and fear is wrong. Our faith requires that we embrace our fellow man, not turn him away because we believe (wrongly, in this case)that he has sinned. Jesus teaches us that. Why doesn't the bushop know it?