Will Church's response to same-sex marriage in D.C. hurt fund-raising?

And here in Hartford, CT, the Catholic Bookstore has closed its doors - shutting down permanently. Those in the know are saying that the child-abuse scandals which came to light over the last few years, along with the Catholic church's public attacks on same-sex couples, has influenced progressive and fair-minded people to place their contributions elsewhere.

If there's one thing the increasingly reactionary Catholic episcopate is likely to understand, it's the action of the market. Many Catholics are finding other places for their charitable donations than placing them in the hands of bishops with a history of defining Catholicism in terms of protecting pederasts and adherence to the Republican platform.

The Catholic church is an old, white elephant. You'd think they would have learned a thing or two from their treatment of Galileo. Someday, they'll have to apologize for their treatment of gays, just as they had to admit the earth is not the center of the universe.

The only people Jesus ever criticized were the priests, for being hypocrites.

Our modern priests enforce arcane rules that they themselves do not follow. They do not help people, and indeed choose to curtail help that could be given, because they value arcane traditions more highly than they value people.

Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." How could that silly advice possibly apply in these issues? Oh - of course: Let your neighbors be married; Let the orphans be adopted; And let the spouses of your employees have health insurance.

It seems nothing has changed in two thousand years. The priests are still hypocrites.

I've already made a bunch of copies of a statement I put in the collection basket each week. It says "in order to ensure that the poor are taken care of as Jesus taught us, I am declining to contribute to the Church as long as it discriminates and contributing to other organizations." Will it change the world? No. But it makes people think about what the Church is and what it should focus on. When you have the Pope telling people "not to judge the sinners" when they are priests, but the Church freely judges sinners who are not, the Church is wrong.

the catholic church in America has paid out two and a half billion dollars in legal settlements to victims of their priests.

Ask yourself the next time you consider giving money to anything the catholics do -- how much of each dollar is going to future settlements and legal fees and other administrative crap vs how much is going to the people you're trying to help?

How much of your American dollar is going to pay for European settlements and legal fees? Religion is dying a well-deserved death in Europe, how are they going to pay for these priests without money from outside Europe?

As a practicing Catholic, I have been hurt by the scandals that have hit the church, but I still believe in my faith. Those who support same-sex marriage cannot win my support by running down my church. Like any human institution, it has failings, but those who believe in it, and try to fix it, won't be won over by abuse from those with a different agenda.

This article is just another in the failed attacks that are regularly rolled out against people of faith. All we have to do is stand up for ourselves and the attackers fold like a cheap suit.

It's not a crime to believe in God, and it's not a 'phobia' to believe the Bible prohibits what these gay people practice.

We aren't 'phobes' of any kind and we are not racists of any kind. We are people of faith, and the constitution of one country in the world--the United States of America--quite clearly and explicitly protects us and allows us to practice our devout beliefs unhindered by the protests of nonbelievers.

Thank you very much.

The acceptance of homosexuality will never be accepted by the vast majority of thinking Christians.

Note to stevehansen1 - Jesus was a little more angered by the lawyer-like pharisees. Lawyers first, priests second, but both had it wrong - still do. The Christian Church needs a new set of theologians who will break with the sorry theological past and enter into a 21st century dialogue with scripture. We proclaim that scripture is the living word and then our best to poison it.

The archdiocese in Washington can condone child sex abuse but will take negative action against the city because of its stand on gay marriage. ...The archdiocese decided to end its foster care program and limit future health care benefits for employees rather than extend them to gay and lesbian spouses. ... Something is wrong with this picture. The priests should be punished just like any "everyday Joe" would be.

With communications and increased understanding and knowledge fostered by the Internet worldwide, the evil catholic church's reliance on ignorance and religio-induced fear will continue to wane, until the catholic church and other cults like it are relegated to the trashbin of history. Take a look at what has happened to the evil catholic church in advanced Europe, and multiply that 10-fold. That's the future. Ditto for the evil prostestant, muslim, and jewish cults that thrive on spewing fear and hatred. LOL

First, my problem is not that the Church disagrees with Gay marriage, that is their right. My PROBLEM was that they were going to leaves new spouses of employees uninsured. Since the Bishops opposed the health care reform bill that means they were willing to make the INNOCENT suffer without healthcare to MAKE A POINT. There is a pattern here. The Bishops wanted no taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, no language ws EVER strong enough for them. They also wanted illegal aliens covered, oh yeah, that bill was going to pass. So they would rather NO one get health care-the many suffer--to make a point. Thank GOD the nuns, who do something like care for people in hospitals and not just settle lawsuits saved the day.

The premise of this article sounds like a vicious meme being planted by the WaPo Progressives in hopes of encouraging the supposedly-rumored funding drop-off supposedly resulting from non-Progressive Catholic policies.

The Church's foster care program actually affecetd a small number of people and they haven't backed away from larger sources of revenue. In general, they have taken a rear guard approcah to things which hasn't helped them with their own parishoners. Given the irish heritage of much in the US Church, I'm much more impressed with what's happened in Ireland. There, the Church was tardy in dealing with its problems, but ultimately took decisive action and where thry've lagged, the public has made its displeasure known. I was happy to see the nins break with the Bishops on HRC--it was another sign that the leadership is out of touch with its base and with the real world. their alliance with fundies who basically think they're the anti-Christ is not going to work in the long run, either.

Regarding Catholic Charities Foster Care Program in the District: Didn't Dave Catania say that they only handled 7 cases? implying that the Archdiocese's "threat" to pull-out of their social services for the District didn't amount to a hill of beans?
Why the bold type for "its foster care program."
Rather manipulative for fair reporting by a journalist, don't you think?

The ELCA (Lutheran Church) is losing people & money because they voted to accept homosexuals as pastors & leaders.

There's more going on here. The secular society along with some Christians think that we should live in a society where any & everything goes but that's not what God says in the Bible. We, who believe in Jesus Christ & the Bible, are saved by His grace, however, we are not allowed to continue sinning once we are saved and that's the crux of the issue......

Secular society should not be allowed to force their beliefs on Christians because Christians do not force their beliefs on them. Christians are not like Islam where you must believe or be beheaded.....

Great words from the heart of the Church..."Therefore, this sacred [Roman Catholic] synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs. Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served."

Jerusalimight: "the constitution of one country in the world--the United States of America--quite clearly and explicitly protects us and allows us to practice our devout beliefs unhindered by the protests of nonbelievers."

You have a skewed idea of what the US Constitution allows. The constitution allows you to practice your wrong-headed bigotry in the name of your religion, but it does not let you do it unhindered by protest. We have the right to free speech just as much as you have the right to be a hateful crank. By the way, the US Constitution is not even close to the only one in the world that allows these very basic freedoms. You need to get out more.

Woe to a society that views mutual abusive unmarried relationships as loving

Dear Finance Pirate,

It's funny how the non-religious allow themselves to insult and offend. Apparently your morals allow you to insult me by calling me a 'hateful crank' even when I say nothing hateful or cranky. Odd for the modern, open, touchy-feely generation to act like that isn't it?

Perhaps those are the same morals that encourage one to sign their name as 'finance pirate,' which I would also not like being called. But then you can do what you want.

This country protects our right to our devout faith, and it prohibits offensive speech against us. Stop it now, it's against the site rules.

Who said anything about modern, open, touchy-feely? I call anyone who stands up between two strangers who love each other and says they can't get married a bigot. This isn't name calling. It's a simple statement of facts.

And anyone who bases their worldview on a two thousand year old book of genealogies, horrors, and insane dogmas, I call a crank. This, while not a fact, is a conclusion that I arrive at based on facts.

And you persist with your completely wrong view of freedom in this country. I am free to call you out on your stupid opinions as much as you are free to have them.

Why do you think that just because you have the right to your opinion, you have some magical right to not have it challenged? You express your opinion, I express mine. Then you say I'm not allowed to express mine because it disagrees with yours? And people always blame the left for taking PC too far. It is, and always has been, the right that can't stand to have it's backwards ideas scrutinized.

You can't claim some shield from challenge because of your religion. I will always call out stupidity, whether it is in the guise of religion or not.

"This country protects our right to our devout faith, and it prohibits offensive speech against us."

Yes, it does; no, it doesn't. Now, you can report financepirate to WaPo for using the words "crank", "bigot" or the phrase "hateful crank" and they are within their purview to remove it if they determine that it violates their site rules.

Since the 1980s, a number of laws have been passed that attempt to regulate or ban "hate speech," which is defined as utterances, displays, or expressions of racial, religious, or sexual bias. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally invalidated such laws on the ground that they infringe First Amendment rights. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992), the Court invalidated the city of St. Paul's hate-crime ordinance, ruling that it unconstitutionally infringed free speech. The defendant in that case had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family's residence.

Just because things have "always been this way" (despite evidence that they haven't been, nor was it uniform throughout the world) doesn't make it true. The United States is not entirely made up of Christians, nor are those Christians in agreement on all points, there are plenty of people who practice other faiths and religions. There are those who don't practice or believe in deities or religions at all. They are still citizens and are supposed to be subject to the same civil liberties and rights as all other citizens. It's not a theocracy. As evidenced by the fact that what is required for a legal marriage, one recognized by the state (and the feds) is a marriage LICENSE. Without a license from the state, no one is wed, no matter where they made their vows and what they promised.

If two consenting adults want to get married, I don't see the problem. Their marriage has no bearing on mine.

I think non-heterosexual unions are a distraction from a great number of other far more important issues at hand, personally. But that's my opinion and I'm free to voice it.

I found this interesting for the historical mention of Catholics:

Typically, the important free speech cases involved the rights of minority groups: extreme anti-Semites, American Nazis, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, and members of both the Ku Klux Klan and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). These cases often involved minority groups with unusual ideas; but they were not always cases in which a minority was in conflict with a majority. In some cases, the conflict is between two different minorities. In some cases, both minorities have been objects of discrimination in the past.

For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses often strongly criticized the Catholic church. Catholics themselves were another, larger, minority in the United States, and had experienced discrimination themselves. Some of the Witnesses' activities were offensive to Catholics, but were nevertheless protected by the courts.

Tagz put it so neatly, I feel obliged to post it again. Seeing as how this lacks the "recommend this post" feature.

First, my problem is not that the Church disagrees with Gay marriage, that is their right. My PROBLEM was that they were going to leaves new spouses of employees uninsured. Since the Bishops opposed the health care reform bill that means they were willing to make the INNOCENT suffer without healthcare to MAKE A POINT. There is a pattern here. The Bishops wanted no taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, no language ws EVER strong enough for them. They also wanted illegal aliens covered, oh yeah, that bill was going to pass. So they would rather NO one get health care-the many suffer--to make a point. Thank GOD the nuns, who do something like care for people in hospitals and not just settle lawsuits saved the day.

Posted by: TAGZ | March 23, 2010 10:24 AM

Perfect example of reaping what you sow. You sow hate, you reap hate (hence the lack of funding).

To: John Rice, about the marjority of christians not accepting Gay's. The majority also said a Black Man would never be President, Never say Never

As one who was raised a Catholic and was a Catholic, I no longer surscribe to that particular church. The Roman Catholic Church has no credible moral authority with me. I am no longer a Catholic, and I have no regrets. The hierarchy is an appointed group of good ole boys.

People are free to practice their religion as they wish. However, they have no right to impose their religious benefits on others which is what many religions promote. If they promote bigotry, they need to expect that many people will no longer donate to support that bigotry.

Many churchgoers forget that bigotry cuts both ways. Catholics used to be targets of Protestant bigots, who got there a little sooner. Mormons were targeted by bigots; their founder was even murdered. Now they want to persecute other people who they believe are hated by their God. By perpetuating this behavior, sooner or later they will again be the victim of the abuse they seek to inflict on others.

Homophobia is intolerance which brings no benefit. Same-sex marriage is a right. Catholic Charities is an organization which is dedicated to intolerance against LGBT people. The grop of volunteers who refused to help out with Catholic Charities rightfully did so. It's too early to know if intolerance negatively affected that organization, but since it's located in Washington, D.C., the answer will most likely be yes.

fr jerusalimight:

>...We aren't 'phobes' of any kind and we are not racists of any kind. We are people of faith, and the constitution of one country in the world--the United States of America--quite clearly and explicitly protects us and allows us to practice our devout beliefs unhindered by the protests of nonbelievers.

If you REALLY believe that, I suggest that you contact your local glbt center and find out when the 2010 Pride celebration is. Go, quietly and PEACEFULLY, and watch the Eastern European "Christian" nutballs scream like banshees, make their small children drag signs that are bigger than they are about sodomy. The first year my wife and I went to our local Pride celebration, one of these nuts didn't like the fact that I was able to tell them exactly what was the cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It wasn't homosexuality, like they were screeching; it was inhospitality to strangers. They backed off, VERY fast.

Oh, and btw, I'm a gay Christian, a United Methodist, whose minister was a special guest at our wedding in June 2008. When we finally get our townhouse all unpacked, our minister is going to come and bless our home.

Christians have a very warped view of what Jesus taught. Read Matthew 19, for a start, and you'll see that Jesus recognized us, not only in the course of human and divine nature, but in the course of human affairs.

What does it say about a prospective donor that she or he would refuse aid to the poor just to make some kind of inane politically correct "statement" about redefining marriage?

The teaching of the complementary natures of genders isn't a homophobic belief.
It's not even exclusively a religious belief.

What does it say about a prospective donor that she or he would refuse aid to the poor just to make some kind of inane politically correct "statement" about redefining marriage?

Posted by: thebump | March 23, 2010 8:54 PM

By the same token, what does it say about a reader who would jump to the conclusion that the person who wrote in didn't donate money to another charity to accomplish the same goal (aid to the poor), or another charitable cause? There are a LOT of charitable organizations, the Catholic church doesn't have a monopoly.