Ex-priest head of Catholic Charities criticizes Abp. Wuerl decision to end benefits
This is a tangled one:
The former chief operating officer of Catholic Charities has called on the organization to reverse its recent decision to change health benefits for employees’ spouses, a move designed to avoid legitimizing same-sex marriage.
Tim Sawina, who was until last year one of the group’s highest-ranking executives, called the elimination of spousal health benefits “devastating” and “wrong” in a letter Wednesday to the governing boards of the social service organization.
The move to change benefits is the most recent fallout from a struggle between the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and District officials, who passed legislation last year to legalize same-sex marriage. (WaPo)
The Washington Post has had it out for the Catholic Church in DC since this most-recent drama surrounding the legalization of homosexual “marriages” in the District began. The “WaPo” didn’t see fit to mention that Sawina is a “former priest” until the fifth paragraph. Still more strangely, both Sawina and Catholic Charities chose to keep the circumstances of Sawina’s July departure from the organization “confidential.”
Fr. Robert Araujo, SJ at the Mirror Justice blog does a masterful job of demolishing Sawina’s arguments. But this whole situation prompts some related questions:
How did Sawina work for Catholic Charities for 12 years? Who is hiring personnel over there? How do we employ, for twelve years, people who are willing to publicly excoriate the Church and challenge her even in the most difficult of circumstances? The Catholic Church in DC could use some friends right now, and Sawina’s efforts to draw blood from within the Church’s camp is an unwelcome blow. The WaPo is only too happy, after all, for any opportunity to make the Church appear divided.
Maybe this came out of nowhere, but I’d suspect that someone doesn’t work for Catholic Charities for twelve years without making it clear to his or her co-workers that they don’t see eye-to-eye with the Church. Well, I know plenty of bright, talented young kids who would love an executive-level job at Catholic Charities. And they’ll defend the Church’s teachings even after their term of employment ends.
update – my father Ed Peters disagrees with the prudence of Abp. Wuerl’s decision, but for reasons far more consistent with principles of Catholic Social Teaching.
Tweet this
Email
RSS
19 Comments
I am an ex-seminarian in Kenya and dropped since I came from a poor family and I am really down….I am looking for someone help me continue with college so I help my mum and brothers….I enrolled in college here since the Pontifical Urbaniana university degree is not recognized by employers here.
This is the Church Militant, and we are at war. I consider Catholic Charities to be an enemy combatant.
simple solution. Give the employees the cash to buy their own individual policy. I can tell you this from personal experience , if I were not compelled to be included in my business’ “family health plan” I could buy a family plan at a third of the cost on the open market since I am willing to shop for healthcare and pay for first dollar expenses. The family plans offered through employers are a financial rip-off. Of course, idiot Obama, because he knows zero about business and finance actually believes otherwise. What a maroon. Moreover, salaries are set with the cost of this “great” insurance benefit in mind. If you don’t believe that I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
romancrusader,
I think you need to reread my orginal posting. You’ll find that I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing w/Wuerl but admit it can be a controversial decision. I was making a proposal that would eliminate any moral dilema that any Catholic organization would face when it involves medical benefits or other benefits that creates controversy: don’t offer them; but, pay the employee enough so that he/she can take care of it privately. It removes any distraction from the organization’s mission.
One of the misconceptions here is that Catholic Charities is the “Church”. Catholic Charities is a non-profit 501(c)3 ‘corporation’, it is NOT the ‘Church’. Catholic Charities has to act according to the laws of the State. It was formed as a non-profit in order to allow donations to be tax deductible according to the laws of “Caesar”. Catholic Charities receives a very large percentage of their funding from the government and therefore has to abide by their rules. As romancrusader said, bedding with the government just doesn’t work for a true God led community. Catholic Charities involvement with “Caesar” is their own doing and should be stopped. Many of the local Catholic Charities organizations, and other faith-based organizations, are changing their rules to be able to receive the funding that supports them. They should be depending upon God for their support and not “Caesar”.
I think that the decision made was really the only alternative. However, this really begs a much larger question: Should the Catholic Church continue to be involved in government contracts. Now, this is not a separation of chuch/state issue but simply one of a business contract.
Personally, I believe that the Church should begin to divest itself of all contracts of this nature. By doing so, allows us to continue our mission, in accordance with our faith. We may only be able to reach 5,000 instead of 50,000 but that is the price we must pay and the price that those who live in DC must pay..
The people of DC may or may not one day wake up and find out that their efforts to give “equal rights” has really not only cost them more money, but a decline in the quality of services offered. (DC government has a wonderful track record on this.)
IMHO, those who claim that they are more than happy to see the Cathoic Church get out of this businss because of their stance on gay rights are the last ones to donate funds/time to these causes.
Jeane,
With all due respect, that’s not love. It’s legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle. IT’S NOT PASTORAL TO CONFIRM SOMEONE IN THEIR SIN! It’s biblical teaching Jeane, get used to it. The archdiocese did the correct and prudent thing. And your comparison to Mother Theresa is quite frankly mixing apples with oranges here.
I’m simply separating sin from the sinner.
romancrusader,
No, it does not. It separates the human being from the sin. Doesn’t a person w/a psychological condition deserve God’s love too? If God loves them then shouldn’t love them also? I seem to remember Mother Teresa cutting the bureacratic red tape to open a hospice in NYC for dying AIDS patients. Those who live the homosexual lifestyle are as human as you & me. Don’t they have the right to protect themselves from financial ruin? I suggest that you start using the terminology, homosexual or gay lifestyle, as a way to describe those who actively have sexual relations w/the same sex. The gay community wants you to associate the individual with the sinful (although they don’t recognize it as such) action. Don’t accept their propaganda.
“While I am against the homosexual lifestyle, those who practice it should have the same opportunity like everyone else to protect themselves from financial ruin if medical problems arise.”
Jeanne, the problem with that statement is that it ligetimizes the homosexual lifestyle.
Good discussion, guys. Jon, I do think you are right. Check out my post: http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/punish-married-couples-for-sins-of-dc.html
What is happening at the DC Catholic Charities, is why I think all employers should not offer any medical insurance to their employees. People should go directly to the insurance companies or to a broker, negotiate a policy that fits their needs, & purchase it. It should work the same way as purchasing auto insurance. Prices should be competitive as long as governmental regulations are kept at a minimum. (Yes I know those living in NY & NJ have very high premiums. It’s the regulations, kiddos!) Employers would then stay out of the picture & not have to worry about moral issues involved, ie whose on the policy, is abortion procedures, cosmetic surgery, or prenatal visits a benefit, etc.. . While I am against the homosexual lifestyle, those who practice it should have the same opportunity like everyone else to protect themselves from financial ruin if medical problems arise.
Another thing, NO ONE is losing their health insurance for spouses will not be covered. This means if an employee gets married they can not add their spouse. A new employee can not cover their spouse.
This is a result of DC Council action. Their slash and burn pro-gay agenda does not allow for dissent.
The Church is doing what it can to continue helping the needy in the District. It’s the council that has forgotten the separation of Church and State. Funny too, cause the State is allowed to interfere in Church affairs, but yet the Church isn’t allowed to interfere in state affairs. For Catholic Church is told, “Keep your noses out of our business.”
This is what happens when the Church and the State are in bed together. IT JUST DOESN’T WORK!
Jon,
I think what the Archdiocese did here was the prudent thing to do. If in order to avoid, for legal reasons (that recognize them as married), the Archdiocese has to drop coverage, it is morally correct. Therefore, I stand with the Archbishop on this one.
romancrusader, I think you misunderstand my point (in fact, I think we probably agree!). Perhaps it is because I was not directly commenting on the opinion of this “ex-priest,” but rather on the issue in general. Let me clarify, parallel to your points.
1.The Archdiocese decided to not offer spousal benefits for any new employees. That way, they treat everyone “equally” while still not recognizing homosexual “marriage.” I’m saying the best thing they should have done is completely ignore the new “law,” still offer benefits for spouses of real marriages, and not homosexual “marriages.” That would not be an evil act – it would be a just act.
2. It is not selfish of the Archdiocese to make the decision it did. However, it is certainly cowardly.
3.We totally agree on this one; in fact, I would go even further. By not offering benefits to any new employees, it is my opinion that the Archdiocese IS sending the message that homosexual “marriage” is equal to real marriage. After all, how does their benefits policy differentiate between the two? It doesn’t.
I have to disagree with Jon.
1. The ends does not justify the means. One can not perform an evil act because one or more of it’s side effects will result in a good act. That is basic biblical teaching.
2. It is not selfish of the Church to do this! It is selfish of the homosexuals who lobbied for these so-called “rights.”
3. To do so would be to recognize the status of gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage. If you subsidize the homosexual lifestyle by providing healthcare coverage you are in effect saying that gay marriage is acceptable enough to be on par with heterosexual married couples by giving the same benefits to both.
Right Jon.
This only punishes those trying to live in accord with Church teaching, again, and moves the homosexual agenda back not one iota.
I think I agree with Jon.
DId the diocese at least increase pay accordingly to help the employees to adequately care for their families? (If so, I don’t have so much of a problem with it.)
Good job! And great questions. Don’t stop investigating. Uncover!
I agree it was wrong to end benefits – the Archdiocese should have told the city council to go you-know-what, and continue to give benefits AND not recognize homosexual “marriages.” Then they would have standing to sue if the city fined them. We need to assert our religious freedom, not find loopholes that we think will avoid confrontation. This kind of capitulation only delays the coming persecution.
Caption of the Day/PPOTD
