So yesterday we talked a bit about some of the tensions between religious freedom and gay rights. The Washington Post has a nice follow-up on the matter of Catholic Charities changing its health coverage benefits to comply with both church law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and new D.C. laws legalizing same-sex marriage.
D.C. archbishop defends Catholic Charities’ stand on health benefits
Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Tuesday that the decision by Catholic Charities to change its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex spouses of its workers is justifiable under Catholic teaching as long as the employees are paid a just wage.
“The Catholic Church teaches to pay a just wage. The compensation package you use to pay that just wage isn’t defined by the church,” Wuerl said during an interview with Washington Post writers and editors. “Employers have the right to frame compensation packages… . At the end of the day, Catholic Charities is here serving the needy, after the law has passed, in complete conformity with the law.”
I don’t see anything wrong with the way this story begins or is framed, per se, but I do think it’s interesting that the church is put on the defensive rather than the DC City Council. I may be wrong, as I sometimes have trouble navigating the Washington Post web site, but I don’t think there was any story where reporters went to the council members who voted to change the law and asked them if they’d thought about any of the unforeseen consequences of their vote or whether they worried they were burdening religious groups too much.
You know what would be a good series for someone to pen? Considering all the unintended consequences of changing marriage law. I myself predicted that insurance coverage would be one of the first things to change but I bet people who actually think about this stuff have considered a ton of potential changes in everything from family dynamics to business decisions to the layers of law that have been formed with a different idea of marriage in mind. You could probably write a story every day for a year and still not run of out ideas. Take this:
On Monday, it told its 800 employees that it would not make spousal health benefits available to any new employee, straight or gay, to any current employee who marries in the future or to spouses of current employees who are not covered by the plan.
How might that change affect a young couple that wants one spouse to stay at home and raise the children? If they’re already operating on one salary — and presumably a low non-profit type salary — will that in any way change their decision to work for Catholic Charities? If these changes are replicated throughout the country, would it have a significant effect on such decisions? Do we care? What if marriage law is changed to permit, as some prominent same-sex marriage advocates hope, “small group marriages”? Will even secular companies drop insurance benefits for spouses? Then how will that change family dynamics? (If you’re in any way interested in this topic, here’s a great article from years ago about how changes in policy can have widespread and unforeseen consequences.)
Maybe it won’t change family dynamics, but I’d sure like to see some media coverage that explained why or why not.
Okay, back to the story. One thing I liked about the story was that it showed how reaction among Catholics was mixed. You have the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issuing a strong defense of the decision, the executive director of the progressive group Catholics United disagreeing with the decision, and an employee giving her own view:
One employee, Michelle Mendez, who helps immigrants as a staff attorney in the legal service program at Catholic Charities, described it as a sensitive issue for employees.
“I disagree with it on a personal level,” she said. “I think it’s unfortunate to cut off benefits and worry about the effect it may have on employees’ families. But on a public level, I understand how hard the decision was and where the organization is coming from.”
As a Catholic believer, she said the church needs to keep to its tenets. But as an employee who might marry sometime and need health insurance for a spouse, she wishes the option were still there. “But at the end of the day, the reason we work at a place like this is to make a difference,” she said. “As long as we can continue doing that, that’s what’s most important.”
The most interesting part of the article, from my perspective, came at the very end:
Wuerl said that with the decision to curtail benefits, he thought no other social service contracts with the city would be affected. He repeated during the two-hour interview that he thought the church and other faith-based groups were facing new opposition because of their beliefs about sexuality.
“No one in the past said, ‘Because you’re motivated by love of the Gospel, you can’t perform [social services.]’ The question always was: ‘Did you serve everyone?’ And the answer was yes,” said Wuerl, who said The Post had unfairly characterized the church as having a choice. He cited an expression, “The prophet isn’t judged by the success of his message but fidelity of his message.”
I actually think this could have been explained a bit more. He’s saying, I think, that no one seemed to complain about the Catholic Church’s doctrinal views when it meant that those moves motivated them to do excellent work on social services (such as a food drive for the needy, pictured above). But when they remain faithful to those same teachings, now they’re facing opposition? I think that it would be great to give gay rights activists a chance to respond to this. I also would love to hear a bit more from this 2-hour interview about Wuerl’s criticism of the “choice” angle. Maybe there will be excerpts of a transcript posted. Or maybe the team there is working on a larger story about this issue. I hope so.
 | Posted at 8:00 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (35) |
March 4, 2010, at 8:48 am
I recognize that this site is primarily about journalism. But what’s the policy about commenting about links that post authors make when discussing stories? For example, if I wanted to make points about the “unforeseen consequences” link that Mollie made, would that be considered off-topic?
March 4, 2010, at 9:37 am
Lots of unanswered questions in the Post story.
Will the archdiocese compensate new employees for the lost benefits — the archbishop seems to be hinting at that, when he talked about a just wage. If now, what will they do with the money saved by not covering spouses.
The other main question is this? How much of the archdiocese’s decision is driven by a desire to retain government funding for their programs? What’s not clear in this story is whether the DC law would require Catholic Charities to offer insurance to same sex couples if the charity was completely privately funded.
March 4, 2010, at 10:28 am
Ray Ingles said:
Upon reading this article, I immediately thought of a blog post I read at the DC Archiocese website about a related unintended consequence of recognizing marriage between same sex couples. It has to do with the culture and media and law re-defining the term “marriage” and what can be done to distinguish the new secular intent from the older religious meaning. This topic would fit perfectly in a comprehensive media report on the unintended consequences discussed.
Hope it’s not too off-topic.
http://blog.adw.org/2010/03/do-we-need-a-new-word-for-marriage/
March 4, 2010, at 11:49 am
Well, perhaps I can say this about journalism. It helps to attend a class or two at the college level in formal logic. I took a course in propositional logic and it was an eye-opener.
In class you’ll learn to avoid the “slippery slope” or “domino effect” arguments that fall outside the rules of formal logic.
For instance, some of you who are older will remember the consequences of South Vietnam falling to the communists. According to the slippy slope argument, if South Vietnam fell, it would only be a hop, skip, and a jump before Australia also fell into communist hands, etc., because of the “domino effect.”
As I said, these theories fall outside the rules of formal logic. They are best avoided or handled very carefully. Many are using this “slippery slope” logic in the gay marriage area. They say, “Gay marriage will lead to __(fill in the blank).”
Last time I checked, Australia still had a democracy, despite the communist takeover in Vietnam. The domino effect that had been predicted didn’t happen.
The last marriage I attended — between a man and a woman — nobody was whispering about where that marriage would lead. There was no whispering about marriage to farm animals, group marriages, polygamy, the destruction of civilization, or tears in the fabric of society. I doubt you’ll see that kind of whispering in any D.C. gay marriage, either. So, basically, I’m just advising caution should you start talking about domino effects, unintended consequences, or the slippery slope. A few people who have studied logic in college will likely fault you for it if you handle it poorly.
Right now, we’re seeing the same types of arguments offered should the U.S. military allow gays to serve openly. What will happen? What will be the unintended consequences of that? Well, gays already serve openly in Australia, Canada, Britain, Israel, and a few other places. The unintended consequences whispered about in Washington have not materialized in those countries where gays serve openly in the military.
In conclusion, do what you want, write what you want, but my suggestion is that, as journalists, you seek to remain on good, factual foundations with your writing projects. Best of luck to you.
March 4, 2010, at 12:17 pm
Well, if Julia can do it… :->
I guess what I don’t understand about the ‘marginal case’ point made in the “unforeseen consequences” link is how allowing more people to get married is a disincentive to marriage.
The examples listed in the article don’t support that. I mean, “allow income tax -> more taxes”? “Allow welfare for unwed mothers -> more unwed mothers”? “Allow easier divorce -> more divorce”? Sure, I get those.
But “allow more widespread marriage -> fewer marriages”? That I don’t get. How is that supposed to work?
March 4, 2010, at 12:35 pm
Just want to say thanks for linking to that article by Jane Galt. I’m no Libertarian, but this blog post was one of the most cogent things I’ve yet seen written about the marriage debate.
March 4, 2010, at 12:46 pm
I’d love to know who requested the sit-down between Weurl and the reporters and editors and whether the editorial board (which has been sympathetic to the Archdiocese) was present. Why is Weurl, in the midst of a PR disaster, just now talkng publcly beyond isolated statements?
I think the issue of unintended consequences, hopefully concrete and not speculation, should be explored, along with the context of consequences of other civil rights movements.
March 4, 2010, at 2:10 pm
Gay marriage has been in effect for some time already in some states as well as elsewhere around the world. I don’t think that approaching this as if it’s something new is helpful. Rather stories should cover any actual impacts. After all, same sex marriage has been available since 2003 in Massachusetts. And we’ve not seen an earthquake there.
March 4, 2010, at 2:23 pm
Yet another story that revolves around Gay people in which no actual Gay person speaks. It is as if a story that featured a press conference critical of, say, Southern Baptists, had no member of that denomination speak. Is this considered responsible journalism? The comments are mainly critical of the bishop’s position and very interesting. One commentor points out that Catholic Charities’ CEO makes $270,000 per year.
March 4, 2010, at 3:07 pm
I’m with dalea on this one, though I’m a little curious about the identity of those “Catholic progressive leaders” in the Post story who refused to comment — could any of them have been LGBT?
March 4, 2010, at 3:13 pm
dalea and Michael,
I’m in agreement that stories about a particular group needs voices from that particular group.
But this story doesn’t revolve around gay people.
This story is about the loss of benefits for employees of Catholic Charities.
March 4, 2010, at 3:16 pm
Also, a reminder to commenters to abide by our commenting policies. As a rule, refrain from calling names any people with whom you disagree and stay focused on journalism.
I’ve had to delete a few comments that deviated a bit too much.
March 4, 2010, at 3:20 pm
Bill! (of four comments deleted fame):
Read our commenting policy before posting again. Thanks. And as soon as you figure out how to be part of the commenting community, I’ll remove you from moderation.
Thanks,
The Management.
March 4, 2010, at 4:26 pm
Is this legal? That has been one thought when I read the article. Some input from a labor attorney would have been helpful. Generally employers can set benefits as they see fit except when there are contractual issues. Someone hired with the assurance that should s/he marry there will be spousal benefits might have a case. Can employers in DC unilateraly change the terms of employment contracts? Every job I ever had had an employee handbook which HR always said was a contract. I wish someone had asked the bishop this question.
March 4, 2010, at 4:26 pm
The Jane Galt article contains some fascinating history but in one sense sets ordinary logic on its head. If the claim is made that gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage, it should be up to opponents to explain how. Ridiculing supporters who can’t imagine their own marital behavior changing, obscures this logical requirement. I would say the MSM have been fairly good at following this logical principle.
NB: This does not affect opposition based on tradition. It’s about factual consequences.
March 4, 2010, at 5:41 pm
I was pleasantly surprised to see a layperson quoted in support of the decision. The more common practice would have been to quote the bishop - or other hopelessly hidebound church official - and then a reasonable-sounding layperson in dissent.Kudos to the reporters for going beyond the boilerplate.
I’d have been interested to know how Catholic agencies in other places where gay marriage has been introduced. We’ve heard about the Boston archdiocese dropping its adoption program. How about in Canada, where there have already been some repercussions on religious liberty over the issue?
I’ve had to delete a few comments that deviated a bit too much.
Y’know, Mollie, every time you post something like that I get curious as to what scurrilous thing the offending commenter said to get deleted. Sort of like mentally filling the profanities bleeped out of a TV show.
March 4, 2010, at 6:19 pm
I see your point, Mollie. So now I’m going to ask for another story — how many employees of Catholic social services in DC or elsewhere might be LGBT? In other words, how many people might be put into a difficult conflict because of their work/service and their sexual orientation?
I know, I’m being difficult and stubborn — alas, not only am I a gay Catholic, I’m a Taurus as well…
March 4, 2010, at 6:23 pm
Mollie asks:
The online Gay press has had such stories. The Gay council member did speak on this at length and was widely quoted in the online Gay press. I don’t think the MSM did.
Two points are fairly constant in Gay coverage. One is that the RCC has never before applied its doctrine of marriage to its secular employees. For decades divorced and remarried workers have been treated in the same way as workers whose marriages conform to doctrine. This failure to enforce its doctrinal standards on its secular employees, until Gay people are involved, has been a major part of Gay press coverage. The second point is that in many places there are antidiscrimination laws that protect ‘marital status’, which has many of the same effects of same sex marriage. These laws have been in place for years and there is no record of any RCC protest. The Gay press and blogs have been covering the issue for a long time. The MSM usually ignores Gay issues until a major event comes along. And generally does not let Gay people speak at any length. The stories are out there, just not in the MSM.
March 4, 2010, at 6:40 pm
Michael,
Not difficult at all! I wonder if you could spell that out just a little bit. What type of “difficult conflict” might they be in because of their work/service and sexual orientation. Are you saying in general? Or has something changed in light of the DC law? Sorry for being obtuse (as always, I blame sleep deprivation …).
Joel,
The commenter was calling one opponent of same-sex marriage some bad names and then moved on to some off-topic discussion on Catholicism, etc. Just off-topic and mean. People can disagree strongly but they should remain civil and on topic.
March 4, 2010, at 7:26 pm
Molly,
I’m probably projecting, but imagine that there are LGBT people working for Catholic social services in DC or some other jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage. Their employer (admittedly, they knew this when they took the job) is opposed to such legal recognition (and to same-sex practices in general.) Their position might always have been conflicted, but they took the job anyway, perhaps out of a commitment to the kind of work the Church does and even out of faith and loyalty to the Church itself.
That employer, because of the change in the law, is denying those benefits to their heterosexual colleagues. (And, in my opinion, weakening the overall value of marriage in the marketplace.) Would this not pit the interests of LGBT employees against those of their heterosexual colleagues? And this in addition to the already conflicted loyalties of those hypothetical LGBT employees who want both to serve the Church and to have their marriages legally recognized?
Maybe there are no LGBT employees of the DC diocese, but given the number of LGBT social workers, etc., that I’ve encountered, I’m betting that there might be a few, and their stories would be interesting.(If you’re out there folks, and you read Get Religion, make yourselves known!)
It’s midterms at my school, so I can empathize with the sleep deprivation problem.
March 4, 2010, at 7:58 pm
That employer, because of the change in the law, is denying those benefits to their heterosexual colleagues.
Seems like this could have another unforeseen consequence, that of fostering resentment among heterosexual employees against homosexual ones.
March 5, 2010, at 4:00 am
I want to echo what Dalea said. The truly illustrative comment was provided by Mollie:
Here I must disagree. How could a story about gay marriage not revolve around gay people? Certainly the thrust of the article is that straight people might be affected by gay marriage. We know that same-sex couples who marry will certainly be affected by it.
If a Pastafarian University decided to ban Catholic students, a responsible journalist would talk not only to members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but to Catholics as well.
There is no gay marriage story from which one can exclude gay people.
March 5, 2010, at 5:35 am
Dave,
“slippery slopes” and “domino theories” fall outside of formal logic but that doesn’t mean one may not speculate in this direction.
As things are, developments in reality do not conform to formal logic. To think so is itself a violation of formal logic.
Regarding the Vietnam War, the “Domino Theory” held that if South Vietnam fell (which in itself constituted misery enought), others would soon follow. Now, Australia might have been mentioned in this but only on the farthest horizon as there are many countries in between. However, Laos and most famously Cambodia did fall after the fall of Saigon. Hence, the Domino Theory is not the stupid nonsense it is often made out to be but has viciously been confirmed with millions of dead.
March 5, 2010, at 5:38 am
And to get back on the actual topic:
Nobody can with certainty predict where developments following the introduction of same-sex “marriage” will go, and where there will stop. Nobody! But anybody is free to make more or less educated guesses!
And, to bring back formal logic back in, there are developments that would be inevitable if the same logic now applied to same-sex “marriage” was applied consistently to other phenomena. If such developments do not occur it is simply due to people not applying their logic consistently.
March 5, 2010, at 5:53 am
dalea,
“One is that the RCC has never before applied its doctrine of marriage to its secular employees. For decades divorced and remarried workers have been treated in the same way as workers whose marriages conform to doctrine. This failure to enforce its doctrinal standards on its secular employees, until Gay people are involved, …”
The difference being that from the perspective of doctrine, those who divorce and remarry engage in bi-/polygamy - they actually do marry, whereas those entering same-sex “marriage” are not engaging in marriage at all, regardless of secular rulers using that term now.
“The MSM usually ignores Gay issues until a major event comes along. And generally does not let Gay people speak at any length.”
Just as the MSM usually ignores Catholic issues until a major event comes along. And generally does not let faithful Catholics speak at any length.
You see, both minorities are actually in the same boat and were it not the for attempts of one of these to dominate the other and everything else (even changing language), they could easily co-exist.
March 5, 2010, at 10:17 am
str, I never cited Australia; Jane Galt did, supposedly quoting others. It was definitely bruited about that if the local dominoes did fall, the US West Coast would be in danger. That was nonsense.
The cause of the fall of Laos and Cambodia was our war in Vietnam. Had we let the Viet Minh consolidate their victory over France, things might well have turned out otherwise.
March 5, 2010, at 10:23 am
That depends on how the original claim for marriage equity is phrased. “Gays and lesbians comprise a second-class cohort because their couples are not allowed to marry” precludes the usual parade of horribles that you are implying.
March 5, 2010, at 12:20 pm
Dave,
It was Dave J. who cited Australia, definitely not Jane Galt.
March 5, 2010, at 12:35 pm
Dave,
I don’t care who cited Australia - my point stands.
No, in the long run it might not have been nonsense.
“The cause of the fall of Laos and Cambodia was our war in Vietnam.”
Eh, it was the North Vietnamese victory that also brought the Khmer Rouge into power. Only afterwards they started to squable, leading to North Vietnamese troops occupying the entire country of Cambodia. It was not the U.S. war that installed Pol Pot but the U.S. chickening out.
And now, let’s please end this off topic discussion.
Had we let the Viet Minh consolidate their victory over France, things might well have turned out otherwise.
March 5, 2010, at 12:44 pm
Str says: “The difference being that from the perspective of doctrine, those who divorce and remarry engage in bi-/polygamy - they actually do marry, whereas those entering same-sex “marriage” are not engaging in marriage at all, regardless of secular rulers using that term now.”
So CC was extending benefits to polygamous families (traditionally understood)? And in the case of remarried divorcees, CC was giving insurance to both the divorced and the new spouse? I suppose you get some points for creativity, but that trial balloon isn’t gonna fly.
March 5, 2010, at 1:04 pm
Polygamy or bigamy are actually marriage, albeit illicit ones.
Same-sex “marriage” however is NOT but something completely different. …
March 5, 2010, at 2:12 pm
… Secular employment is defined by secular law as is secular marriage. Which is what this controversy is about. The press coverage does not make this very clear.
March 5, 2010, at 5:54 pm
Polygamy or bigamy are actually marriage, albeit illicit ones.
More importantly (it seems to me), illicit marriages can be made licit, if an ex-spouse dies or if the previous marriage is annulled. Unless the person is flagrant and unrepentant about it, the Church actually has no way of knowing that the marriage hasn’t been regularized. Generally they don’t ask unless there’s some glaring need to do so.
A homosexual union is incapable of being regularized as a marriage under Church law, and so allows for no such uncertainty.
March 6, 2010, at 4:43 am
Joel,
“More importantly (it seems to me), illicit marriages can be made licit, if an ex-spouse dies or if the previous marriage is annulled.”
Not quite! Annulment doesn’t make an illicit marriage licit, it merely states that it had been licit from the start as the annulled marriage never existed. At least, that’s how it should be.
But in essence you are right!
But even if church authorities were inconsistent in this, is no basis to demand that they now give benefits to unions they must consider unnatural.
dalea,
“Secular employment is defined by secular law as is secular marriage. Which is what this controversy is about. The press coverage does not make this very clear.”
What is “secular employment”? What if the “secular law” becomes tyrannical and begins to redefine words?
And even if one accepted this redefinition, how can those making certain arrangements under the understanding that word X means a certain thing then be blamed if the goverment changes that word to mean something else, affecting the arrangements made. They can either ignore this act of tyranny (but the tyrants won’t stomach that) or change their arrangements in conformity to their original intent.
March 10, 2010, at 12:55 pm
I still see no mention of whether the compensation package will include higher salaries to compensate for loss of benefits (for employees of any orientation). Or is this just a fiscal opportunity to cut insurance costs for future employees or the new spouses of current ones in the guise of doctine? It may be that the church has the right to decide how to structure just compensation, but will they be doing it justly?
Unintended consequences if they want to remove spousal health insurance without lowering compensation: Can’t pay heterosexual married employees more than homosexual married employees or singles under equal pay statutes, whereas they effectively do now. That means that the marriage benefit for all is reduced, probably hurting heterosexual marriage more than the less frequent gay marriage.
Dalea makes a couple of good points. Is this a violation of contract law and why wasn’t a labor attorney of either side quoted on it? Then if a divorced person claims their current legal spouse but the church believes the original spouse is the person worthy of coverage, isn’t it promoting either coverage of an unmarried partner or polygamy? (And of course it isn’t covering the first spouse.)
DaveJ and Jerry are right that facts on the state of marriage in states or countries with legal gay marriage would tell us something about the impact in factual terms.