To Catholic Charities: "What Would Jesus Do?"

Last month, I talked to my friend Eric Sheptock, the homeless - homeless advocate whose story I began to tell back in April.  After catching up, we talked about DC's same-sex marriage amendment that passed its second vote in the DC Council just two days ago.  I'd asked his permission to repost his literal, "Man on the Street" perspectives on the amendment, Catholic Charities, homelessness and the politics of it all in DC.  But procrastinator that I am - I didn't keep my word (Sorry Eric!).

Now that the 30-day clock is ticking for Congress to sign-off on the amendment and make it law - or not, I thought I'd share a little history from someone who will be personally affected if Catholic Charities decides NOT to do what Jesus would.

~#~

Catholic Charities Pimps DC Council Again, This Time Over Gay Marriage
By Erick Sheptock
(Posted November 13, 2009)  

What do a Catholic Charities homeless shelter and gay marriage have in common? Some would venture to guess that gay men want the right to identify as women and sleep in female shelters and that butch lesbians want the right to sleep in male shelters. That would be a very well-informed guess. I've witnessed gay men checking into female shelters, though I've yet to see a butch lesbian check into a male shelter. Such rights exist in DC homeless shelters already.

However, there is a new and strange twist (no pun intended) to the fight for gay rights. I received the news over dinner last night (before it even hit the airwaves) that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC is considering the possibility of not doing any more business with the city of Washington if the gay marriage bill is passed. Being that the news has hit the airwaves at this point and you can get the story by going on-line, I'll take some time to give you a little of the background on relations between Catholic Charities and DC Government as well as the low-down on the mayor -- the parts of the story that the media won't tell you.

In March I did a blog post about several shelters having been threatened. (See below where I've re-posted it.) It was believed by the homeless community at that time that DC Mayor Adrian Fenty wanted to close ALL DC homeless shelters before leaving office in January of 2011. Then, the mayor was heard suggesting that homeless people who are not from DC go back to where they came from. (You can read about that in my September post entitled: "DC Mayor Tries To Rid City of Homeless".) In lieu of all of the reasons that the mayor has given the homeless to think that he wants them to just get out of town, it behooves the mayor to proactively prove otherwise. No matter how many layers of authority and contracts lie between the mayor and those who actually close the shelters, the mayor will still be implicated in the closure. He is still ultimately responsible. It is, therefore, in Mayor Fenty's best interest to actively prevent any shelter closures, especially at this time of year. He must use every weapon in his arsenal to come to the rescue of DC's homeless. Failure is not an option. Even if Catholic Charities shuts down all city operations, the mayor will be who everyone looks to for answers.

Catholic Charities is a different story altogether. Some believe that Catholic Charities is in dire straights and is using the gay marriage bill to suck more money out of the city. But before I explain the correlation between the gay marriage bill and the homeless shelters, I'll explain how Catholic charities likes to pimp the city.

The news came out on September 28th of this year that $12 million would be slashed from DC Government's Homeless Services budget. All homeless service providers were, in turn, ordered to cut 30% from their budget for FY 2010. Catholic Charities representatives attended a hearing in front of DC Councilman Tommy Wells on October 5th and stated that they could not continue to operate with one-third of their budget having been slashed. They threatened to shut down all of their city shelters, which would have resulted in the loss of about 2,000 shelter beds. The city scrambled to find the funds to keep the shelters open. Within 3 days the mayor found $11 million and the shelters were saved. He thereby averted a lot of major lawsuits due to hypothermia deaths.

However, this showed Catholic Charities that they are in a position to do a power play on the city. If this latest development is any indication, Catholic Charities is not going to let the city forget that they -- and not the city government -- hold the cards when it comes to social services in the city. When I referred to Catholic Charities as having pimped the city during conversations in October, it was blown off as being nothing but hype. In the articles about this latest move, various council members have weighed in on this issue of being pimped by Catholic Charities. It's too obvious to ignore at this point. I told you so.

The story goes like this:

The DC Council has been working on a gay marriage bill, which they expect to pass next month. While the bill makes certain exemptions for religious organizations, it doesn't make exemptions for businesses. Churches don't have to perform gay marriages or allow their space to be used for gay marriages. However, businesses are not allowed to discriminate against gays in any way, shape, form or fashion. They must serve gay patrons and must extend employee benefits to the gay partners of their employees. Catholic Charities, being a non-profit, is an uncanny marriage of the two -- a church and a business. They seek to assert their religious beliefs as reasons for them not to have to abide by the gay marriage bill as it pertains to businesses. They also claim that the increased cost of employee benefits justifies them opting out of city contracts due to the increased cost of those benefits having not been figured into the contracts at the time of the signing. Catholic charities is seriously considering not doing business with the city any more. If they were to make good on this threat, thousands of DC's most vulnerable citizens would suffer. That makes it rather selfish of Catholic charities to opt out of their city contracts. (As a quick aside, I must say that I told the person who first informed me of this situation with Catholic Charities that I feel obligated to remain a homeless advocate, in spite of me not getting paid for it, and that my reason is that I'd be letting a lot of people who look up to me down if I were to quit now.)

Let's also bear in mind that Catholic Charities receives city funding. This alone obligates them to lay aside any religious beliefs and to continue to deliver services -- secularly, as a non-profit and not as a church. My statement is not without precedent, that precedent having been set in the Central Union Mission (CUM) case. Central Union Mission sought to move to the historic and city-owned Gales School. With CUM being Christian-based, they were told that they could not acquire the Gales School unless they lifted the religious requirements. That is to say that they couldn't make anyone pray or attend chapel services as a requirement for residing at the shelter. Neither could they make or enforce any other religious policies such as not allowing people to smoke cigarettes. CUM is still bargaining with the city for the Gales School; but, they know full well that they must lighten up on the religious requirements in order for this deal to move forward. With Catholic charities receiving city funds, they can expect the same type of treatment.

The crux of the issue is whether Catholic Charities is more of a church or more of a business. (I can't help but think of a related ethnic joke.) Should they be exempt from honoring the gay rights law due to being a religious organization or be obligated to obey such a law due to them being a business and receiving city funding?????

While people ponder that question, I'd like to throw a possible solution out there. There has been conversation between homeless advocates and DC Government about the homeless community running the shelters. This too is not without precedent. The CCNV (Community for Creative Non-Violence) Shelter in downtown DC is run by homeless people. No one gets paid to work there. The shelter runs entirely on donations, with the building being owned by the city. The building was actually wrested from the Reagan administration by homeless people who were operating under the leadership of Mitch Snyder.

This conversation needs to be picked up and become a bit more serious. Furthermore, the city should actually pay the homeless to run the shelters. They should transfer the money that they would've given to Catholic Charities to the homeless who would run the shelters. The homeless would be willing to run the shelters with the reduced budget that Catholic Charities cried about in October. Furthermore, it would serve to empower the homeless -- to instill in them a can-do attitude. This alone would lead to a substantial decrease in homelessness. Just something to think about.

~#~

For more of Eric's thoughts on this, here's a link to his most recent post:  On the Clock with Eric Sheptock: Have a Heart For the Homeless -- Raising Awareness on a Social Justice Issue

The Bible according to Cinie - and me too!

No one I know can put this whole debate over Gay Marriage versus Civil Unions more clearly than fellow blogger extraordinaire, Cinie - over at Cinie's World. If you've not been to her site - go!!!

Her May 28 post was one of the most succinct, tongue-in-cheek, splayings of the Bible-based opposition to gay marriage that I have ever seen. Rather than link to it, I asked if I could reprint it here in it's entirety (If her reference links don't copy here for some reason, you must follow the link below to her site and read them - particularly if you plan to question her research. But I don't advise it).

"The Case Against Gay Marriage"
Gay people should not be allowed to marry each other. That goes without saying. They cannot breed, and the things they do in their bedrooms, and in public restrooms, and under gaudy mirror balls on sweaty dance floors, are unnatural, and, just plain icky. Therefore, they should be forced to marry straight people or be banished to the fringes of society. If not, and they are allowed to marry each other, and worse, adopt, or otherwise have and raise children, they will soon infect our society with their depravity, and open the door to those who wish to marry children, animals, multiple partners, and even whole families.
Everybody knows this. God’s Holy Rule Book and Instruction Manual for Humans is very clear on this. Why, on its very first pages it clearly states that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Adametta and Stephanie. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in that story. One must consciously, and deliberately, reject God’s word to argue otherwise. Got it?
The sanctity of one man, one woman marriage is constantly reiterated in the Bible, with rules for proper behavior within the institution clearly delineated. All holy humans profiled in its pages behave in a manner mandated by God with regards to marriage and childbearing. Take, for example, Jesus, God’s Only Begotten (pp. beget, i.e, the Begats) Son. Though he was not married, per se, according to the Bible, history has proven beyond all doubt that He was, because, since all Jewish males of His day were, He must have been. The evidence strongly suggests that His wife was most likely Mary Magdalene, who was either a demonically possessed, former prostitute, or, an apostle, and the true inheritor of His mission, and, it is only a matter of time before definitive proof is uncovered that there is indeed a young Caucasian descendant living in Britain, or L.A., as portrayed in the Da Vinci Code. Those who suggest that God’s not marrying Mary, Mother of Jesus, wife of Joseph, before the Child’s birth invalidates the marriage sanctity argument are merely heathen heretics, or just being silly. Either way, they are unworthy of debate or entry into Heaven, not to mention Starbucks.
The case for marriage between one man and one woman is more clearly made in the Old Testament, however, as is the burden of propriety borne by women. Let’s face it, women are by nature, temptresses (sluts) and unclean, (nasty) and must be made pure before God’s Chosen Gender deigns to dally with them and sully themselves in the first place. Thus, isn’t it better for a man to limit his exposure to them one at a time? Unless of course, he is a soldier in battle and not required by God to kill the women along with everybody else. In that case, he may have as many of those conquered virgin females as he wishes, and do with them as he pleases. The Bible is very clear on this.
Adultery is an abomination before God, this too is clear. A woman is only allowed to engage in sex outside of marriage if she and her sister are convinced there are no available men of their kind with which to procreate. They are then allowed, nay, required, to get their father drunk and rape him in his sleep on successive nights. If a woman’s husband dies, her brother-in-law is required to impregnate her; if he refuses, or only pretends to do so, she is free to fake out her father-in-law by pretending to be a prostitute and become pregnant that way, and insure her and her child’s inheritance. Unmarried women are to be offered as substitutes for unwilling visiting males to Sodomites, with no stigma attached, if the visitors claim to be angels. If the Sodomites reject the offer, they are to be blinded by the visitors so that they may not find the door to enter into their host’s home. This is clear.
A man is allowed to marry his half-sister as long as they are related only on their common father’s side. It is then okay for him to offer his wife to foreign heads of state, only to have an angel beat the king about the head to prevent relations, or reveal the truth to the king in a dream, or, for the couple to reveal their true relationship by having public relations within the foreign head of state’s view; the goal being to extort funds from the transgressing king’s coffers, or, save one’s hide. The Bible is very clear on this.
Men who win wrestling matches with other males by touching their shrinking “sinew” are God. The loser’s resulting limp is proof. “He who pisseth against the wall” is granted many other privileges and rights in regards to marriage/sex. If a man who enjoys dancing with abandon in the streets, clad only in a linen apron in celebration of his God. has his fancy taken by a bathing foreign temptress, he may take her, impregnate her, and have her husband killed. Though this sort of behavior is apparently frowned upon, if the man repents, the couple’s child will die and his other children from other marriages will one day rise up against him. However, he may then marry the new widow and one of their next offspring will become king.
If a man becomes enamored of the younger sister of an unmarried woman, her father may trick him into marrying his firstborn first. After having children with her, he may later marry the woman he truly loves and have children with her, too. Sometimes, if a woman’s husband dies, she is encouraged to follow her mother-in-law into the land of her birth and seduce a rich man as per her mother-in-law’s instruction, in order to marry and carry on the family line. Women are also allowed to tempt rulers to capital punishment on the advice of their mothers.
While some may quibble with my Biblical interpretation, I have made every effort to insure that each incident is Biblically documented. For example, though Moabites, descendants of Lot and his daughters, were indeed considered infidels, it is worthy of note that it is through Ruth, the converted Moabite who secured her inheritance through the seduction of a wealthy man at the instruction of her Hebrew mother-in-law, that Jesus is said to be descended of David, nearly naked dancing celebrant. Also in the line are Tamar, the woman driven to pretend to be a prostitute, Rahab, supposedly an actual Caananite prostitue, and Bathsheba, foreign (Hittite) wife of David and mother of Solomon. I have tried to find reputable references, pro and con, whenever possible, in this post, and have avoided linking to sites like this one, which is not to be viewed by the faint of heart. I have also purposely avoided skeptics and other atheist sites to the best of my ability, though one or two may have snuck in. The devil, you know?
With these few examples it is no mystery why Christians and other true believers must denounce gay marriage as a threat to their sacred institution. I mean, come on, clearly, the Bible has always intended for marriage to be a union of one man, and one woman, most of the time. Though the Bible mentions the word “adultery” waaaay more often than “homosexuality,” and “thou shalt not commit adultery” is the seventh commandment, while there is no commandment against homosexuality, that’s easily explained since, throughout history there must have been far more lying, cheating spouses to throw stones at, than deviant, depraved queers.
No follower of God’s most sacred rule could ever accept marriage equality for homosexuals. That’s just silly. Almost as silly as believing that I could ever buy into such nonsense. Or, believe that anybody else does. Like, most people, I just believe the parts of the Holy Human Owner’s Manual that I like. Unlike most people, I’ve actually read most of it.
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? {26} He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? {27} And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. {28} And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-28)
TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.
OBAMA: Yes.
TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue.

(see other video on original post placed here, because even though she gave me the link - I can't make it work!!)




Much like issues affecting the Black community, the Changeling has side-stepped Gay community issues as well. But then again, he never promised them much of anything either.

A "Crisis of Faith"

I got up today, made coffee and switched on CNN just in time to see the two big stories of the day - a celebration of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the White House and the Supreme Court considers the death penalty (for the rape of a child and whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment ).

I switched the TV off, drank my coffee while looking out the kitchen window at my friend, a white ibis perched atop the 6ft.-tall ficus hedge, partitioning the western side of my house from the street. For some strange reason, that ibis and a black and yellow striped butterfly both grace me with their presence every single day (well the ibis, almost every single day)! My heart felt so heavy with the irony of these accepted, powers-that-be involved in "saving" society from itself. Aloud, to no on in particular, I asked the question I've been asking for some time now, "Where's God in all this madness?"  Spurred by the news coverage and that ever-present question, I went to my laptop (damn desktop died in mid-post the other day!) and sat down to post on my continued "crisis of faith."

Before I started writing though, I decided to click through my blogroll and went first, to The Field Negro's site to which I gravitated early on when I decided to build this thing. Being a "field negro" myself, I figured there'd be something there to which I could relate and I was right. His writing is smart, intuitive and funny while at the same time, bold, unapologetic, real and most importantly, open to something other than his familiar. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but he'll sure as hell make you think while offering a great forum to debate/discuss the topic du jour. I was up after 2 a.m. this morning discussing two separate blog posts with a constant commenter there!

His latest post, "My religion post" threw me for a real loop. When I saw the title, I immediately heard that, Twilight Zone, "doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo," and thought, "Okay, this is either some weird or very spiritual shit!" He'd posted what I was feeling and had hit the nail on the head on almost every damn thing! I left a comment to that effect, but didn't elaborate because I knew I'd be posting my thoughts here. But I have to say, it shook me - in a good way. This may end up being a two-part post because I know how long-winded I can be. I'll see.

Today's "celebration" struck an old nerve because I was once a Catholic, though probably for all the wrong reasons. I went to an all-Black Catholic school in the Jim Crow south from kindergarten to 8th grade. The Oblate Sisters of Providence out of Baltimore was the Black order tasked with educating us.

Born into a family of organized religion (my father was Episcopalian and my mother was a Methodist-turned-Southern Baptist), I started out indoctrinated. Protestant church, a minimum of twice on Sundays with a two-week, Baptist Training Union (BTU) camp every summer and oddly, Mass every Wednesday during the school week. God was always in my life. I both believed and feared that, despite or maybe because of the presence of that Crow guy. In the 6th grade, I clearly remember coming home and telling my mother, "I want to be a Catholic." She looked at me like I was losing my damned mind. She asked me if I understood that she and my father were working three jobs between them to send us to Catholic school to get a better education than the one white people were providing via the public school system. Adding, "We're not working that hard for you to get their religion!"

The fact that her form of Christianity was also their religion was not a topic we discussed. As is my wont, I did it anyway, but it only lasted a couple years. As it turns out, my issues with the necessity of having "middle-men" won out. I was having a hard time understanding why I had to go to weekly Confession and tell my sins to Father Joyce or Father Haggerty so they could tell God, then have God tell them what my Penance should be, in order for me to get absolution! I repeatedly pestered my principal, Sister Duchesne (a long, dark chocolate drink of water who was a "new nun" because she wore a half-habit showing the front part of her hair and a shin-length skirt) about why I couldn't get forgiveness from God myself. I wanted to be a nun just like her and even though she freely laid paddle-to-ass, quite frequently mine, I trusted her to tell me the truth. Needless to say, her explanation was insufficient. So, back to my mother's Baptist church and BTU I went.

The Pope's "celebration," in light of my background, certainly stirred old affiliations, but it was more disappointing than anything else. He's good at parsing too. And the crowd and the media seemed okay with that, being more caught up in "being in the presence." I wondered, as I often do when I think of the literal sins of the Fathers, "What does God think?" What did God think when His Holiness denounced pedophilia, but was mute on the acceptance of LGBT congregants and female priests? What does God think about our daughters, caught between life happening and their faith, as they struggle with the tenet of abstinence-only in a non-abstaining culture? What does God think about women, considered outcasts because, for whatever reason, they chose abortion? What does God think about the spiritual and physical repercussions of men and women languishing in loveless marriages because the church frowns on divorce? I kept asking myself, "What is there to celebrate about a church leader so out of touch with what congregants really need, in favor of the dogma which slowly kills the spirit of some, while others, feeling lost and alone in this wilderness we call life, kill themselves?"

I've not been to church in at least three years and my attendance before that was intermittent at best. I bear no allegiance to any organized faith though I always say I am Baptist when asked, probably because that was my last affiliation. I am not atheist, nor am I agnostic because I do believe in a power greater than me - greater than us. Call it whatever you like, but I don't believe we just came to be. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but rather a guide written by followers of Christ. Like most people raised in the church, however, I have one. And at times, I find solace and meaning in some of its passages, but confusion and cruelty in others. I remember telling that to my doctor once in an after-exam consultation. We talked for about 30 minutes! Ten about the additional test for which he was writing a referral and 20 about God and the Bible!

I can still recall the look on his face as I shared some conversations I'd had with some Arabic linguists while in language school about biblical, Hebrew-to-English translations. He was horrified! He kept telling me the Bible was God's word and I should come visit his church some Sunday. After some back and forth we agreed on the Bible being the "inspired" word of God and that I might drop in to hear some good gospel music one Sunday. I've not gotten there yet. Some time, in the last five years or so, my faith in God has been shaken, but that Southern Baptist in me, that ex-Catholic in me, won't let me say God doesn't exist. As I look around this world in which we live, I cling (yes Sen. Obama, I cling) to the belief that my God has to be in me and it will be by my works, by my serving humanity in whatever small way I can, that I'll someday either find that faith again or make peace with what I have.