Updated Forecast: In Excess of 8" of Snow, Plus Wind
And Now, 10-20 Inches
Federal Govt. Closed Tuesday
Snowmaggedon 1.0 in Time Lapse
The Catholic Church is shaking things up these days, huh? The same Church that silenced Galileo Galilei has acknowledged that aliens could maybe exist. Further, the Church says that xenomorphs might not require redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is only talking astrobiology in theoretical terms right now, but what's preventing the Vatican from launching its own national space program? Could we see, you know, a mission to Mars?
So alien beings on distant planets who have known neither Christ nor original sin and maybe have acid for blood are A-OK with the Church. Teh gay, however, is not. Archbishop Donald Wuerl -- who is not so much a popular guy in the gay ol' District these days, following the Archdiocese's controversial threat to rescind its social-work contracts should the D.C. Council legalize gay marriage -- takes to the Washington Post today with a column to explain the Church's view. Writes Wuerl:
While we do not agree with the council on redefining marriage, we recognize that it is firmly committed to opening marriage to homosexual couples. We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests -- those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs. The archdiocese has not been alone in requesting broader language. Other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and nationally recognized legal scholars all called for stronger protections for religious freedom in their testimony on the original bill.
It is uncomfortably tempting to make a pun when an Archbishop makes a bad-faith argument.
What the ACLU actually said is that the wording should be clarified to guarantee that churches are not required to perform or host same-sex marriages -- which is entirely consistent with the intent of the legislation. City officials are willing to work to make sure this is clear, so long as religious organizations agree to treat their homosexual employees the same way they treat their heterosexual employees.
More in sadness than in anger, Archbishop Wuerl writes, the legislation "would reduce unnecessarily the resources available for outreach." The Archbishop expresses "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." For an explanation as to how these policies would restrict the Archdiocese, Wuerl writes, "Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses." It would be the District turning down the Church!
What Wuerl doesn't mention is employee benefits -- the actual crux of the Archdiocese's displeasure with the legislation. The Archbishop writes, "We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests -- those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs." It is apparently a deeply held religious teaching and belief that same-sex partners of employees of the Catholic Church not receive benefits.
What Wuerl also doesn't mention is that the Archdiocese's judgment is consistent with the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical agreement between conservative Christian leaders to rally in their opposition to abortion and teh gay. Wuerl was the first to sign the document, which calls for Christians to practice civil disobedience to protest liberal social laws. Render unto Caesar, bitches!
Of course, what Wuerl doesn't need to say is why he is writing an editorial instead of, say, a letter. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has said that she hopes to find a solution that does not involve intervention by her peers in Congress -- which is probably conservatives' last best hope for preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District. And D.C. Council members David A. Catania and Phil Mendelson have sent Wuerl letters noting a compromise policy practiced at Georgetown University. Wuerl doesn't mention any specific change to the legislation that his editorial would seem to call for ("We are asking that new language be developed"). But hey, the Washington Post sure is read by a lot of people in Congress who could do something about it.
What Wuerl also also doesn't mention is teh gay aliens. What happens if the Church finds extraterrestrials and they are totally gay?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I say we separate all churches from any District government business. That way they can hide in their temples and curse the darkness, and the city government can equally represent all citizens of the city.
This just shows the mentality dodos, there could not be totally gay aliens, as they never would have reproduced! This is what we have been trying to tell you, the universe does not operate homosexually. It requires a male and female. Turn on your light! WOW, do you not yet get it????
Oh for Pete's sake... The gay aliens bit was a joke! Grow a sense of humor or go home.
What's the frequency, Lynda?
This just shows the mentality dodos, there could not be totally gay aliens, as they never would have reproduced!
I'm pretty sure "Lynda" is a parody, but in any case I'd like to thank her (him?) for giving me an idea for a sci-fi story in which the aliens reproduce via sexual reproduction but don't have gender as we understand the term, so that any member of the species can reproduce with any other. I'm thinking maybe external fertilization, where the "egg" and "sperm" cell are the same sort of cell, possibly protected via secretions of chemical sheathing to control the possibility of apomixic parthenogenesis, which would properly speaking be asexual reproduction. Then they meet humanity. Wacky hijinks ensue.
I believe that was an episode of Star Trek: TNG. But I don't think hijinks ensued...
Exactly. Not only were there no wacky hijinks, there were no hijinks of any sort. Totally different storyline.
(Okay, if you have the DVDs there's the deleted scene where Riker externally fertilizes the hot alien babe. That's still neither wacky nor a hijink.)
Wow! That photo is a big church-state "WTF?" moment. Nice touch.
amen, westender! i mean, the only thing better would be if lanier was saluting wuerl as well.
Is it possible that we could use our reason instead of our emotive reactions against authority to make a judgment on a photo. It looks like a procession for a fallen officer. Forbid the police stand next to the archbishop as they follow the coffin of a dead officer down the street!
Yeah, or it could be that Lanier is about to perp-walk the bishop.
Except, regrettably, it's not. If you look at the entire Flickr photo-set, you'll see that it's a regularly scheduled annual church-state wankfest.
[And the photoset is primarily dedicated to homoerotic appreciation of the well-developed male police officer. Genius, Kriston. Genius!]
...Getting a kick out of this as yes, you nailed a primary focus of my photography, WestEnder, and identified the unstated genius of Kriston choosing to illustrate her story with one of my pictures.
for the 47384729039472032947234th time, kriston capps is a man, baby!
I had to put on Gang of Four's "I Love a Man in Uniform" when I was putting this together.
Heh! Can't really think of a more appropriate song to accompany the task, Mr. Capps. Cheers!
Wrong!
Is it possible to think here that maybe gays just shouldn't work for the Church? That they should quit and go elsewhere if they want their insurance policy to cover their gay partner? Why shouldn't an employer be permitted to hire and provide benefits as they see fit? Isn't employment voluntary? You don't like the employer or the benefits, go somewhere else. And let the Church do it's business as she pleases without the intervention of the state in it's practices.
The separation of Church and state that is so frequently touted, is a separation on both parts, no? The establishment clause was primarily intended to protect Churches from state interference (as it was to protect speech from state interference and the press from state interference). If you want the Church to stay out of the political business of the state, why are you so quick to suggest that the state should involve itself in its business?
please, beingornothingness, take your concern trolling back to the vatican.
peace,
+++JMJ+++
Is it possible to think here that maybe gays just shouldn't work for the Church? That they should quit and go elsewhere if they want their insurance policy to cover their gay partner? Why shouldn't an employer be permitted to hire and provide benefits as they see fit? Isn't employment voluntary? You don't like the employer or the benefits, go somewhere else. And let the Church do it's business as she pleases without the intervention of the state in it's practices.
The separation of Church and state that is so frequently touted, is a separation on both parts, no? The establishment clause was primarily intended to protect Churches from state interference (as it was to protect speech from state interference and the press from state interference). If you want the Church to stay out of the political business of the state, why are you so quick to suggest that the state should involve itself in its business?
The church is welcome to employ anyone they want. Thy may not take MY TAX DOLLARS and willfully discriminate.
+1
I see at least three things in that picture that DC would be better off without, starting with MLK Library.
What if the aliens have three or more genders? Or are genderless and want to get married?
"so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs"
Beliefs that are intolerant, discriminatory, and prejudicial are NOT more righteous when they are based on "deeply held religious teachings and beliefs," they're just easier to maintain without any reflection or logical justification.
As a confirmed Catholic, it has long been my deeply held belief that the Catholic Church is a tyrannical and sinful enterprise.
Amen!
+1
Photo Caption
"The Blind Leading the Blind"
"Bishop Detained for 'Browsing' Young Adult Section without a Library Card"
"Bishop Detained for 'Browsing' Young Adult Section without a Library Card"
Caught him twice I see.
I generally agree with the council's desire to legalize gay marriage; however, this article's brash mocking of the church is really unacceptable, and saddens me.
This is a real social issue that deserves real debate. The church is slinging mud, rather than working for a solution, and while they should be called out for it, mocking them only serves back to them what they're sending out. It fails to advance the discussion and makes both sides look petty and petulant.
Solution: The church should go away.
Yeah. Good luck with that. Where the f**k am I supposed to double-park on Sunday then? PG County? Ha!
Credit where credit is due -- the Catholic Church makes some effort to get people to go the church in the parish they live in, not the one in the neighborhood they abandoned decades ago but still claim belongs to them and not to the people who actually live there now.
They don't make very much of an effort, to be sure, but they don't make very much of an effort to oppose the death penalty, say, or do anything else that doesn't relate to abortion or teh gay. But the point is, even if they don't try, they try to try.
i agree. some of these comments are so crass. they do nothing to further the discussion.
ted: welcome to dcist! we peddle in crass.
who let all the catholics in?
Are you kidding? They breed like crazy. I blame the rhythm method. Damn you, Vatican II! You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!
What about Tranny aliens? Does the church have anything to say about that?
Most of the posting here is general anti-relitious vitriol. It's interesting that no one is asking for this issue to be decided by the voters. I would guess that even here in DC the issue would lose. California, Maine . . . anywhere voters choose, gay "rights" lose.
Hey Ms. Kapps
Your editorial prose is quite teh gay. Let's hold on to them guns n religion. Got milk?
goldthimble is officially the stupidest commenter on dcist. congratulations on winning the idiot prize.
kriston kapps is not a woman. learn to read.
I heart IMGoph
Wow - you've successfully bashed an established Christian denomination. How edgy... how drole! It must have been really hard. Faith is soooo midwest/deep south, isn't it? Funny how Catholic Charities is the largest and most efficient provider of social services in the US (maybe worldwide - not sure) - you'd think after all the legal settlements they'd be flat broke. Stupid American's still give with their heart instead of using reason and demanding the government provide for our every want and need.
Stupid American's still give with their heart instead of using reason and demanding the government provide for our every want and need.
I'm aware this thread is probably long-closed, but I should probably admit that in the past I have given generously to Catholic Charities, as well as other charities that happened to be Catholic. I did this despite being a Quaker rather than a Catholic, because these charities did good work.
But now it's a moral issue. Starting now, all the money that I previously donated to the Catholics is either going to secular groups or Christian groups that support my Meeting's position on gay marriage.
So, am I still one of the stupid Americans, or does the fact that I passed "how to form plurals" in my first grade English class mean that I was never really one of the proudly semiliterate right-wing army? Even though I donate to religious charities, and even though my first grade class (and second grade class, and third grade class, and so on unto twelfth grade) was at a Catholic school in the Midwest? Or should Steveo just take his passive-aggressive claims to moral superiority and do with them the first thing that comes to his mind when he hears the term "gay marriage"?
Also, there is no apostrophe in "American's" because it is not possessive.
Reasoned arguments shouldn't include spelling errors if they are to be taken seriously. I can just sense the breathless moral superiority oozing off of my screen.
I concede! You've totally conquered the moral high ground with an apostrophe.
Take your ' and shove it up your :
And I say that with love.
Remember, you hate the gays' cause because the gays cause the government to provide for their every want and need. Clear enough? Good!
Next lesson will be on using unsubstantiated sweeping generalizations in support of discrete arguments. Stay tuned...