The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington DC has declared that they will pull their social services to city residents if the same sex bill, currently being considered by the Washington DC city council, is passed as is. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem,” said Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese.
So, essentially, those in the Archdiocese who are making this decision are saying that, contrary to what we might have believed, agape is not unconditional, but dependent on the Archdiocese’s imprimatur of City Council policy.
Tell me, where does Christ append an anti-secularity clause to his “do it to the least of these, you do it to me”? What kind of Church is this that demands compatibility with bureaucrats before it will do the work of Christ?
Read the whole story here.
PS. Vox Nova has picked up on the discussion here.
Like
DWade,
I’m not sure situating this issue in the context of agape/unconditional love is the best route toward understanding it.
I think in part it is largely about (Roman) Catholic identity, which, if laws are passed that stand to violate that identity (whether you see it as a violation or not), is valid to protect.
I think it is a somewhat simplistic reduction to criticize the lack of unconditional love/agape on the part of the Catholic Archdiocese of DC. After all, they also have a teaching mission – and this is perhaps more important than the social services they provide. IN fact, the social services are part and parcel of the teaching mission – not as an example of agapaic/unconditional love.
(Indeed, I don’t know one single church body that can in fact really provide anything free of any conditions – even soup kitchens require that those eating maintain a sense of decency toward one another or relinquish their meal. So “unconditional” is a highly ambiguous term within the contingent nature of the created order…)
In other words, if the Archdiocese were forced to compromise their fundamental principles in order to follow secular legislation, it would see itself as repeating Peter’s denial of Christ. Again, you may not agree with how the Archdiocese approaches the issue in question (same-sex marriage) but try not to let this disagreement prevent you from seeing the issue of identity and teaching authority also at stake.
To be blunt, it seems that your disagreement with the Archdiocese’s position on same-sex marriage has caused you to invoke an idealism (unconditional love) in order to criticize what is really an issue of identity. No?
Brendan,
I think you’ve misunderstood what I said in the post above. My beef is not at all with the Church identifying a particular point of public policy which clashes with the Church’s belief. In fact, I’d be worried if the Church wasn’t actively doing this at all times. But that’s the point isn’t it? The Church should never expect the state to be in perfect conformity with it at all times, b/c it never will be, until the eschaton.
Rather, the Church must always be about it’s business of ministering to the sick, needy, widowed, fatherless, poor, etc… And the conformity of the state can never be a condition of doing that work.
I have been thinking all day about whether or not to weigh in on this. I rarely comment on any blogs at all, but this has been troubling me since I found out about it this morning. The reason it troubles me is not because of the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on same-sex marriage. That is another issue. Before I continue, I should say that I am a practicing Roman Catholic. Rather, what is troubling me here is that charitable work is being used as a weapon. I can’t remember anywhere in the Gospel where Jesus lays down conditions on visiting those in prison or feeding those who are hungry; he simply tells us to do so, further telling us that when we have done so to “the least of these” that we have done so unto him. He doesn’t tell us to do so only if the state is acting “morally.” The Church, whether it be Roman Catholic, the Church catholic, or another denomination, will never agree completely with the state and its laws. If we begin to make our charitable work based on the condition that the state enact laws that conform perfectly to our Christian ethics, we will always be frustrated…and the works of mercy, which Christ and the Church call us to, will cease. It seems to me that such works become more necessary, more important, more reflections of Christ’s love in a context where the state and its laws are farther from Christian practice, because it means that the people around us need Christ all the more. Furthermore, we cannot teach love without actually loving. The teaching mission of the Church cannot be separated or isolated from its charitable work. It is not by accident that our greatest Saint, Francis, told us to preach the Gospel at all times and to only use words when necessary. To put it another way, orthodoxy cannot be separated from orthopraxis…and orthorpraxis means more than protesting against laws we disagree with. Orthopraxis, in its highest form means loving as Christ loved. Loving as Christ loved, which was admittedly a love that sometimes called for correction with words, and sometimes strong words at that; so there is a place for such words in contemporary discourse. But love is more than our words…and must be. Loving is to preach the Gospel. But if we are only speaking and withholding works of mercy as a weapon in the culture wars, we are only shooting ourselves in the foot with that same weapon…and our ability to preach the Gospel will limp along, slow and unsteady and unheeded because if we have not love, all of our words are just clanging gongs and rattling cymbals.
Is the issue that charitable work is being used as a weapon, or that the RC Church will be forced, by the law, to carry out that work in a manner inconsistent with its beliefs, and this not in an inconsequential manner, but a substantive one? In Boston, for instance, the RC Church, which for over a century ran many of the best social services for orphans, completely pulled out of this line of work when the legislature said that they had to allow same-sex couples to adopt. Not sure if the Washington situation is similar. . .
As a 501-C3 organization churches have long been exempt from legislation such as this. In exchange for not using the pulpit for explicit support of candidates for office churches are granted the opportunity to act in what maybe “discriminatory” in public groups. Private groups, especially, social service agencies which are funded by these tax exempt groups (ie Churches) can and should, under constitutional grounds serve without direction from the state. In this case the Boston diocese went the wrong route. Keep serving the people. If necessary challenge the constitutionality of the law which “said they had to allow same=sex couples to adopt.”
@ Brendan: Your analogy regarding the requirement within soup kitchens is not an equivocal one. In those settings the conditions are implemented for the care and benefit for those the kitchen serves. In the case of the Archdiocese’s decisions this week, the homeless are not being treated or served because of a completely other set of concerns. Its like saying to the guy in the soup line he can’t be served, not because of his actions within the building, but because the temperature at the North pole reached 30 degrees. The grand misconception here is that “marriage” in the eyes of the state needs to be condoned and performed always and everywhere in the Church. That is wrong on Constitutional grounds as well as on theological grounds.
So in essence, I call BS on this whole conversation. The Church always and everywhere is to live out its mission to the world. Mission in the name of Christ is not a political or Machiavellian threat to effect legislation. What, on earth, does providing for the needy of DC have to do with same sex marriage? Even if a gay homeless couple came into a soup kitchen for food, why the hell would they be denied a meal? Wouldn’t the care given be both an opportunity to minister to their body as well as their doctrine?
First I want to correct a misrepresentation, at least as characterized by Dan’s post above and in the Washington Post and then comment on that correction. Catholic Charities will not be withdrawing its services. It will still pursue the particular works of charity that have been a hallmark of the Christian community. However, such efforts will be limited by less resources since Catholic Charities will not pursue contracts/resources from the DC government that make it compromise its understanding about marriage. This in my mind recognizes the fact that charity must always be grounded in truth. It would not be true charity if the Church and its various organizations compromised itself in order to help more people. Unfortunately, living up to the truth in today’s world is not easy and indeed down right difficult because so many people are eager to think that “the ends justify the means.”
If the DC government is serious about the Church’s help in the DC area, they can easily provide the exemption the Church is asking for in this situation. Not too demanding I think.
That’s helpful and insightful, Josh. Thanks.
Just to mention the diocese own position:
“The archdiocese and Catholic Charities are committed to continuing to provide services in the District. Despite the headlines, there has been no threat or ultimatum to end services, just a simple recognition that the new requirements by the city for religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriages in their policies could restrict our ability to provide the same level of services as we do now. This is so because the District requires Catholic Charities to certify its compliance with city laws when applying for contracts and grants. This includes contracts for homeless services, mental health services, foster care and more. Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses.” — Archbp. Wuerl on 11/17/09
Read his whole letter here:
http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=705&Year=2009