Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Somebody has some 'splaining to do!

I really wish I did not have to post a story like this today but according to today's Washington comPost...

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples...and transferred its entire foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

Now, on the one hand this shows that Catholic Charities and the Archdiocese is willing to stand up for true marriage but if you read further on in the article, there is something shocking...

Edward Orzechowski, president and chief executive of Catholic Charities, the archdiocese's social service arm, said the group is optimistic that it will find a way to structure its benefits packages in other social service programs so that it can remain in partnership with the city without recognizing same-sex marriage.

Asked if that meant looking at ways to avoid paying benefits to same-sex partners or ways to write benefits plans so as not to characterize same-sex couples as "married," Orzechowski said "both, and."

So, Mr. Ozechowski and the Archdiocese may be willing to consider extending benefits to same-sex couples, only under a different name. If that is the case, then why not consider abortion as part of a comprehensive health care package to all employees.

Why is he and the Archdiocese even considering this! Is this what the people of the Archdiocese are spending their money on?

To paraphrase a famous television show: "Somebody's got some 'splaining to do!"


Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that you decided to NOT give to the archbishop's appeal because the diocese was supposedly supporting same sex marriage. I decided to not give because of things like this, where the diocese refrained from serving others, which I feel is a true Christian duty, probably the simplest (and at the same time most complicated) commandment Christ preached. The District didn't demand that the church MARRY same sex couples...just that they provide benefits. The church doesn't really recognize marriage outside of the church anyway...but they provide benefits for workers who are married elsewhere. This is just bigotry. I personally can't understand how people can be against love so much.


I think you mis-read my posting on the Appeal. Read it again.

Anonymous said...

There is such a thing as the Love of Evil, as Bernadette mentioned in Lourdes. Saint Bernadette was against that type of "love so much."

No one is permitted to provide benefits so that evil can be done. Read all about Sodom and Gomorrah. There is not a Hazmat suit in existence that can protect a person from the Wrath of God. And what triggers this wrath? ANS: Mocking True Love.

Anonymous said...

The following question needs a clear 'splanation:

Is this what the people of the Archdiocese are spending their money on?

Religions in America get taxpayer dollars via Faith-based & Community Initiatives. The fact is that there is no absolute separation of Church & State in America. Proof exists in the observation that the police officer hired by the State directs traffic flowing out of a Sunday church parking lot. The detective hired by the State still investigates the mysterious death of a parishioner or cleric that occurs in a church. In America, there has been the practice of having a Church chaplain lead a prayer at the opening of a State congressional session.

Taxpayer dollar opportunities for religions exist in the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services, amongst other government agencies. This includes the Administration for Children & Families' Compassion Capital Fund. This also includes the HHS Partnership Center, by which "partnership" refers to the government partnering with religions or grassroots community organizations.

The question was if social service programs are what the people of the ADW are spending their money on. The answer is no, of course. However, that is what their representatives are spending their tax dollars on. The Washington Post article mentioned that Catholic Charities Inc "receives $20 million from the city." Yes, the ADW has been a city contractor, just like a construction company.

The danger in a religion being a government contractor is that of its leaders selling out the religion for the sake of income. That phenomenon was mentioned in the US Supreme Court Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed against Wuerl's former diocese, in 2002. The claim was that Wuerl suppressed religious rights under the "color of law" pursuant to the "Compulsion Test" in fear of loosing government contract money, government grant money, and/or tax exemption.

This fear was proven to exist when Wuerl refused to deny Nancy Pelosi communion. His excuse for not doing so was that following canon law could have severe "national ramifications." The ramifications were that of provoking the pro-abort politicians into pulling the financial rug out from under religions.

At this junction, there is the aggravation factor. Wuerl is still open to the possibility of serving the households of sodomite couples, so that such couples will be empowered to distort an impressionable foster child's mind. Keep in mind that Wuerl is "up for a red hat" this year. So, he has to do something on the exterior that will make him look good. He cannot live off of the protective Zero Tolerance image, being that his cover-ups have been exposed and made available to anyone with internet access. So, he is now posing as a champion who tried to prevent Sodomy from being regarded as sacred as Matrimony. He has failed, but he can make it look like he is still trying to prevent the Church from serving Sodomy. Maybe that pose will get him a red hat.

The hypocrisy consists in the fact that Wuerl catered to the homosexual world for years. "Dignity Masses" were a part of Pittsburgh while Wuerl was there, and Wuerl even had at least one homosexual living in his Warrick Terrace house, serving the duties of a personal secretary.

The actual trick that Wuerl is pulling is this: He is trying to make it appear that he is not in formal cooperation with the sodomite law, but is only in "material cooperation" with it. After all, this issue involves the Sin of Cooperation. The "material cooperation" defense will be his rationalization for finally giving in to the homosexual world in the future, yet once again. Perhaps he thinks that he will get "red hat" points for trying before giving in.