From The Lost Art of Catholic Drinking, by by Sean P. Dailey at InsideCatholic.com

“Here we encounter Catholic drinking. Catholic drinking is that third way, the way to engage in an ancient activity enjoyed by everyone from peasants to emperors to Jesus Himself. And again, it is not just about quantity. In fact, I think the chief element is conviviality. [emphasis added] When friends get together for a drink, it may be to celebrate, or it may be to mourn. But it should always be to enjoy one another’s company.”

Words to live by!

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington released a statement (“DC Council Committee Narrows Religious Exemption in Same Sex Marriage Bill“) last Tuesday (Nov. 10, 2009) concerning legislation currently pending in the DC City Council. The archdiocese has concerns that this legislation, Bill 18-482, “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009”, does not contain strong enough provisions to protect the rights of religious institutions which disagree with the bill’s main purpose, namely to permit same-sex couples to civilly marry in the District, and to have all the same rights, benefits and privileges currently limited to opposite-sex married couples. In addition to allowing same-sex couples to marry, the law would not require any individual person or any religious group to officiate at or solemnize same-sex marriages; the legislation explicitly protects this right of religious freedom.

I am not an attorney, and I have no doubt that there are legitimate questions of law that should be thoroughly addressed by the Council before this legislation is approved and passed on to the mayor of Washington for his signature. I trust that the Council is addressing these concerns, especially to ensure that the final version of the Bill that is enacted into law is able to withstand any possible legal challenge claiming the law does not provide sufficient protections for religious freedom.  

While I am not a lawyer, I do know something about Catholic teaching and moral theology. It is here that I find the archdiocese’s statement — characterized by the Washington Post as an “ultimatum” — problematic. The archdiocese declares that pending legislation, “…could prevent [emphasis added] social service providers such as Catholic Charities from continuing their long-term partnerships with the District government to provide critical social services for thousands of the city’s most vulnerable residents.”

No wonder that the Post reported this as an “ultimatum,” because the Church is essentially saying:  either exempt us from provisions of the law with which we disagree, or we will be forced to discontinue being a service provider for thousands of DC’s neediest residents.

There are two problems with such a declaration.

Forced into a Corner? Not really!

First, the legislation would in no way require the termination of the “long-term partnerships” between the District and Catholic Charities (or any other Catholic entity). While Catholic Charities may choose not to continue such partnerships in a world where same-sex marriage is allowed in the District, this decision would be Catholic Charities,’ and not the District government’s.

Doing Good with Acceptance: The Principle of the Double-Effect

Second, even from the perspective of Catholic faith, the termination of such partnerships would be the Church’s choice, not an obligation. This choice would be free and not required by Catholic social or moral teaching. There is a widely-accepted principle in Catholic moral thinking called the Principle of the Double Effect. This principle is a way of thinking through whether or not an action which has two effects — one good and one bad — is morally permissible. Catholic Charities could very validly and correctly apply this principle and still maintain its city partnerships in order to continuing doing the good work it has done in Washington for decades.

Although moral theologians may disagree on some fine points, there are generally four conditions that must be met in order for a double-effect analysis to adjudge an action as acceptable.

1. First, the action itself must be either morally good or morally neutral.
2. Second, the evil or bad effect must be unintended.
3. Third, the good effect must not be caused by or a result of the bad effect.
4. And fourth, the good effect must proportionately outweigh the bad effect.

Here’s how it would work. For argument’s sake, let’s say that Bill 18-482 has been enacted and is now the law within the District of Columbia. The Archdiocese of Washington (or any of its entities) is now faced with the decision of whether or not to continue current or seek new contracts with the District government to provide social services.  From the Archdiocese’s perspective….

1. The “action” is continuing or entering into a contract to provide social services to the needy.
2. The “good effect” is the provision of such services (feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and dying, etc).
3. The “bad effect” (from the Church’s perspective, not mine) is the Church’s compliance with the District law requiring all organizations receiving District funds not to discriminate against same-sex couples (e.g. by providing spousal benefits to a gay Church employee, or by considering same-sex couples in adoption applications along with opposite-sex couples).

How would the four conditions of the Double-Effect Principle fare in this scenario? Clearly the action itself – continuing or entering into contracts – is at the very least morally neutral. There is nothing per se that is bad or evil about contracting (unless you’re re-modeling your kitchen, but that’s another matter!). Second, the bad effect – following the DC law prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples – is obviously not the intent of Catholic Charities, but would rather be their compliance with a law with which they do not agree. Third, the good effect of their contracts – the continuance of financial support from the DC government in doing good for the thousands and thousands of people in need – is a result of the action itself (i.e. the contract) and has no causal connection to the “bad effect.” And finally, this good effect, which would allow the Church to continue in an uninterrupted fashion the numerous programs it manages that help those in need, clearly outweighs any “harm” that the Church could envision by its full compliance with DC law.

Does the Church really want to be in a position of saying that the physical, material, social, healthcare, educational, and yes spiritual needs of so many thousands of Catholic Charities’ clients went unmet simply because the Church would have had to comply with DC law? Would such compliance be so evil, so horrible, that it was worth abandoning such a core facet of the Church’s mission and the Gospel call to serve those in need?

While I in no way share the Church’s perspective that compliance with this law would be bad or evil, even Jesus advised his followers to ‘render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s’ (Mt. 22:21). The Church is presenting itself here not as an actor, but as a victim, as if it were being forced out of doing God’s work because it didn’t want to give Caesar his due. This is a false choice — the DC Council shouldn’t buy it, and neither should we. 

I continue to be surprised and saddened by some of the things that Bishop Richard Malone (of Portland, Maine) has repeatedly stated in his goal of encouraging Maine Catholics to vote for the repeal of recent legislation allowing same-sex couples in that state to marry. In a letter last year, Bishop Malone made the odd statement that, “Marriage is an institution that predates civilization…”  I’m not quite sure what the bishop means by that, but surely he doesn’t mean that our prehistoric ancestors were forming the types of marital  relationships currently being discussed, does he?

Thankfully, many good and faithful Catholics in Maine seem to be taking to heart their baptismal right as full members of the Church and voicing their disagreement with Bishop Malone. A commentary in the National Catholic Reporter quotes the bishop as stating, “‘that it is the doctrine of the Catholic church — not my personal opinion — that all Catholics are obligated to oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage.'” (Though not cited, this apparently appeared in a September pastoral letter.)  By using the word “doctrine,” it appears that Bishop Malone is trying to give greater weight than is due to certain pronouncements from Church leaders. While legitimate questions can be and are being raised about whether the bishop is correct on this point, it is quite clear that the “obligation” Catholics have is that they follow their well-formed consciences, even in matters in which their consciences lead them to conclusions that are different from Church leaders. The matter at hand — a civil law that recognizes a civil right and in no way infringes on religion or the rights of the Church — clearly does not by its very nature place Catholics under an obligation to oppose such a law, even if it does not reflect current Church law.

Please support Catholics United for Marriage Equality.

In his blog shortly after the funeral liturgy for the late Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Boston’s Sean Cardinal O’Malley provided reflections in response to the many Catholics who thought that providing the Senator with a Catholic funeral was “scandalous.”  For those who fully understand Catholic teaching and even church law on this subject — not to mention the Gospel of Jesus — there never was any question whatsoever whether Kennnedy would or should be burried from the Church.

In part, Cardinal O’Malley stated: “We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss.” These are pastoral words from a pastoral heart. These are words that answer with Gospel values the question, “what would Jesus do” in a similar situation.

Today’s National Catholic Reporter reports, “Father Michael J. Gillgannon, a widely respected missionary priest of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, has written an open letter to his bishop, Robert W. Finn, taking strong exception to his leadership….” Read the full story and Fr. Gillgannon’s wise and thought-provoking letter.

See the commentary in the Huffington Post by Dignity/USA Executive Director Marianne Duddy-Burke on the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy and political leadership for issues of importance to Gay Catholics.

Given his recent decision to celebrate the Liturgy with his back to the people in a desire to celebrate the liturgy “Ad Orientem,” (i.e. “facing east”), some might think that the current bishop of the diocese of Tulsa, OK would be keen on maintaining hierarchy and status. A recent visit to the diocesan website, however, betrays another picture altogether. In fact, the bishop seems very committed to recognizing the dignity of God’s People, he even has refers to all members of his flock as “bishop,” having instructed the diocesan webmaster to label every picture of people (including women and children) on the diocesan site with “Our Bishop.”  (By the way, the only problem with the bishop’s desire to celebrate the Liturgy Ad Orientem in the diocesan cathedral is that Holy Family Cathedral seems to be on a southwest-northeast axis … oh well!)

Yesterday I received a brief, handwritten note in the mail. In this Internet age of email, text messaging and other forms of instant communication, what a wonderful feeling it is to see a hand-addressed envelope in the mail, amidst the bills and junk mail and advertising flyers.

As I opened the envelope and read its contents, I saw it was a response to a letter I had written recently to a former seminary professor, a man I’ve always thought of not only as a brilliant academic with the heart of a poet, but one of the most Christ-like men I’ve ever known, a living saint whose joy is infectious. In part, he wrote: “We’re friends by God’s smile and grace forever. I give him thanks.”