To avoid covering domestic partners, Catholic Charities changes benefits policy

[CBHagman]

In response to the efforts by elected officials in District of Columbia to legalize same-sex marriage, Catholic Charities announced that current employees who have not signed their spouses up for health insurance coverage may not do so in the future, and that moreover newly hired employees will not be able to gain insurance coverage for their spouses at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html

Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.

(SNIP)

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

(SNIP)

Staff members at the charity were not given advance notice of the new policy and will not be able to add a spouse now because the most recent open enrollment period ended in November.

To DUers in other industrialized nations: Bear in mind that in the United States is no guaranteed system of health insurance. Most people get it through their jobs, but tens of millions of people have no form of health insurance at all.

[rug]

1. They had a choice and made the wrong one.

San Francisco resolved the false conflict between church law and civil law.

This boils down to a political decision, not theology.

[CBHagman]

2. Yeah, I'd heard of that option before.

I think San Francisco may not even be the only diocese which allows employees to have a member of the household -- parent, sibling, roommate, etc. -- on their insurance plan.

I really shouldn't be surprised by this, as Wuerl has displayed the ability to play hardball with the DC government over policy, but this has really shaken me to the core. The larger issue for me is that everyone needs health coverage, period, and most of us get it through our jobs. Facilitating someone's health care is not the same thing as sanctioning his/her relationships.

[Matilda]

3. Your health system is so different to ours, it would be foolish of me to try and comment

on something I don't understand.

One issue I have, and it covers other areas too, is that the Church deems that Church Law takes precedence over
State law everywhere, and governments simply go along with it. When State law is geared to fair treatment for
all, I don't believe the Church should be allowed an exemption. The Church should be bound by State laws covering
equal rights and equal opportunity for all, as provided for in all western countries. (So should the Queen of
England, but that's another topic altogether).

It also touches on the current push being made in the UK and North America (and no doubt it will come to Australasia
soon enough) for Sharia law to be allowed to take precedence over State law for Muslims. I believe this is wrong,
but if the Catholic Church can be made exempt from provisions of State law where the two are in conflict, how can
anyone argue logically against Sharia law being allowed exemptions from State law as well?

[CBHagman]

4. More public statements.

All self-explanatory.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030403277.html

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.

(SNIP)

"Some, including the archbishop, have argued that by providing health care to a gay or lesbian spouse we are somehow legitimizing gay marriage," said Sawina, a former priest. "Providing health care to a gay or lesbian partner -- a basic human right, according to Church teaching -- is an end in itself and no more legitimizes that marriage than giving communion to a divorced person legitimizes divorce, or giving food or shelter to an alcoholic legitimizes alcoholism."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/03/by_william_wan_capping_off.html

Capping off a week of controversy at Catholic Charities, a second high-ranking former executive sent a statement to the Post today, opposing the organization's recent decision to eliminate health benefits for spouses as as a way to avoid offering benefits to the same-sex partners of its workers.

Wayne L. Swann, former vice president of human resources, makes his argument against the cuts on theological and business grounds. "It is incomprehensible that given its tireless efforts on behalf of the poor and vulnerable that the Catholic Church would deny anything to people in need," Swann writes, "...The expense of acquiring individual coverage for spouses by employees of Catholic Charities will be a significant financial burden and may be cost prohibitive during this time of ever increasing premiums and current economic conditions."

[MindandSoul]

5. It doesn't make me proud to be a Catholic! . . .Wrong decision!